Oral Answers to Questions

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Devon and Somerset Fire Service

Hugo Swire: What discussions she has had with the Devon and Somerset fire service on its funding settlement; and if she will make a statement.

John Healey: The Devon and Somerset fire service met the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), on 5 December. It also submitted written representations, and we carefully considered those alongside all the other representations that we received before making our decisions on the local government finance settlement.

Hugo Swire: The Minister will be aware that the Devon and Somerset fire service estimates that it is £2 million worse off because of the change to the pensions for firemen, although that was meant to be cost-neutral. The Government Actuary's Department came up with a figure of £1.2 million, although the way in which it was calculated means that we are talking about £174,000 less than even that amount. The Under-Secretary has indicated to the authority that he estimates that it was short-changed by £440,000. Will the Minister for Local Government provide all the estimates calculated for Devon and Somerset's funding, so that we can decide whether we are short of £1 million, £174,000 or—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

John Healey: The changes to which the hon. Gentleman refers were designed to smooth out the cost peaks and troughs that fire authorities previously faced year to year in paying for pensions. The Devon and Somerset fire and rescue service has been quids in as a result of this arrangement, whereby the national Government step in to make good any shortfall over the past couple of years. Of course I am happy to examine the case that the Devon and Somerset authority has offered—we did so in the run-up to the finance settlement and we will do so again if it has fresh information—but I have studied the figures, and I think that the balance of advantage lies with that service.

Adrian Sanders: Would the Minister be prepared to meet a cross-party delegation of Members of Parliament from Devon and Somerset to examine next year's settlement, because every year the authority has to consider cutting operational capacity, as it has done in this year's budget round, and that cannot be in anyone's interest?

John Healey: Of course I will meet a delegation of MPs—I am always prepared to do so. I do not want to mislead the hon. Gentleman, but nor should his own fire and rescue service. Far from being hard done by in the next financial year, and unlike 10 fire and rescue services whose settlements are on the floor for such authorities, Devon and Somerset's settlements for the next three years of the period are significantly above the floor. The authority is thus hardly hard done by in the terms that he argues.

Stewart Jackson: Clearly the three-year settlement is disappointing. The Minister will be aware of the disquiet felt by many fire authorities in the south-west about the financial implications of the FiReControl project. It is felt not least in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), where there is near universal opposition to the closure of the tri-service centre in Quedgeley as a result of a new FiReControl centre in Taunton. The regional FiReControl project is three-years late, and 14 times over budget and still heading north. Will the Minister for Local Government give the House a firm undertaking that the cost overruns on the project will not mean fewer firefighters and poorer pensions in the south-west and throughout the country?

John Healey: First, the hon. Gentleman misrepresents some significant opinion about the attitude to the FiReControl project in the west country. Secondly, the FiReControl project is designed to strengthen the service's capacity to deal with all sorts of pressures and challenges that it may face in the future. Far from demonstrating the case against that initiative, the summer floods reinforced the case for making just such a move. We will do our best to ensure that the implementation of the FiReControl programme across the country proceeds according to its current time scale and budget. That is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be doing, and I shall give him any support that he needs.

Affordable Housing

Tim Farron: Whether her Department expects to meet its 2006 to 2008 affordable housing targets.

Caroline Flint: The Housing Corporation is on track to meet the affordable housing targets we set for its 2006 to 2008 affordable housing programme. Not only that, the corporation is today announcing initial allocations for the new affordable housing programme for 2008 to 2011, which will contribute towards our Housing Green Paper target of providing 70,000 new affordable homes per annum by 2010-11, of which 45,000 will be social rent homes.

Tim Farron: Funding has been scrapped for the rural housing enablers at a time when the Government are nowhere near meeting their unambitious targets for new affordable housing in rural areas. I wrote to the Minister recently about the "Home on the Farm" scheme, which would have provided hundreds of new dwellings by transforming disused farm buildings in my constituency. Does she agree that that is an imaginative scheme which could help to prevent more of our rural communities from becoming lifeless ghettoes of empty second homes? If so, will she support the restoring of the funding to the rural housing enablers so that such schemes can become a reality?

Caroline Flint: There is plenty of opportunity for local authorities, should they wish to do so, to use planning policy statement 3, which provides for marketing affordable housing in rural areas. There are several ways in which that can be done, including using disused buildings. I am pleased to announce today a new national target for rural affordable housing, to deliver 10,300— [ Interruption. ] At least we have targets for house building. The target is to deliver 10,300 completed homes in communities of fewer than 3,000 in the next three years. That represents a rise of more than 50 per cent. on the 4,625 units allocated, and it is for completions, which is a lot better than for allocations.

David Wright: Will the Minister review the targets for supported housing for young people? We need more such housing, especially through the development of more foyer projects. We made a commitment that we would have a foyer scheme in every town: when will we get that?

Caroline Flint: I welcome my hon. Friend's question because in my previous role at the Department for Work and Pensions I was pleased to meet the Foyer Federation to hear how it was providing homes for 10,000 young people a year, and supporting them in finding work, through learning and skills packages. I am pleased to say that the number of homeless 16 and 17-year-olds in bed and breakfast accommodation is down a third. We need to do more and, with my colleagues in the DWP, I intend to explore further what more we can do for young people through housing.

David Evennett: With the number of first-time buyers at its lowest since 1980 and home ownership falling, is not it time for the Government to remove the roadblocks to home ownership that they have put in place, such as rising stamp duty and home information packs?

Caroline Flint: The Tories say that they want to help first-time buyers, but across the country they oppose the extra homes that first-time buyers and young families desperately need. The fact is that we have helped almost 95,000 people get their first step on the housing ladder through shared ownership schemes. We have 1 million more people in home ownership since 1997, and we are building not only the homes but the sustainable communities to ensure that everyone has a chance to have a roof over their head.

John Reid: The real roadblocks to a property-owning democracy are mass unemployment, hugely high interest rates and low standards of living. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government on having avoided all three of those factors left to us by the Conservative party. Does she accept that, even given that, it is necessary for people to get a step on the first rung of the ladder? Will she therefore insist on going ahead with her plans for affordable housing and not be diverted by the opposition or cynicism of the Conservatives?

Caroline Flint: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. In order to create the environment for home ownership, we need good employment rates, and they are at a record level; we need low interest rates and inflation; and, importantly, we need to build the houses. There is no point Opposition Members talking about supporting more people in buying their own homes if they then join Tory councils locally to oppose every house building venture. We are committed to more affordable homes and to considering different schemes to make that happen, but we should not kid ourselves: we need to overcome the lack of house building over decades to ensure that we can provide, among other things, the first rung on the property ladder.

Nicholas Winterton: What discussions has the Minister had recently with the house building industry about the provision of affordable and social housing, and how it might be a good idea to have such provision as part of general housing development, so that ghettoes of affordable and social housing are not established? I would be very interested to know what initiatives the Government are taking.

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to say that one of my first telephone calls was to Stewart Baseley, who leads the Home Builders Federation. The hon. Gentleman is right: we do want to ensure a mix of tenures in developments. To achieve that, we have to have support at local level, which I have to repeat is not often forthcoming from his party.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while we need more affordable housing, especially in my constituency, we should remember, too, that some tenants in Keighley—especially on the Woodhouse estate, which is managed by Bradford Community Housing Trust—live in appalling conditions? The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, our hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), will bear that out, and he is going to visit that estate. I wish that we could do something to encourage the trust to improve those houses, especially at a time when it is shoving the rents up—notices went out yesterday.

Caroline Flint: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. I know that she recently had an Adjournment debate on that issue. I hope that she is aware of the measures that we are taking through the Housing and Regeneration Bill to provide the tenants of registered social landlords with the opportunity through Oftenant to ensure that they get the services that they require. We want to raise the standard of support for tenants, and that means empowering them to have a voice about how to drive up the standards of services.

Growth Point Bids

Michael Jack: What mechanisms exist for public consultation on growth point bids.

Iain Wright: New growth points are subject to the statutory regional and local planning process, and so any growth bids will be subject to robust testing and public consultation as part of the regional spatial strategy and local development framework mechanisms.

Michael Jack: Reassuring as the Minister's answer is, to date the growth point bid submitted for Blackpool and the Preston area has not been subject to any form of public input or consultation. Will the Minister assure me that mechanisms will be established, if that growth point bid is successful, to enable the public, at appropriate stages, to have their input before the area is irrevocably changed by the proposals in the bid?

Iain Wright: I love conspiracy theories, too, but the idea that we are trying to promote growth point bids behind closed doors and in smoke-filled rooms is wrong—actually, because of the smoking ban, it would be illegal, too. Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we will bring forward proposals shortly on the second phase of growth point bids. I reiterate my original answer: they will be subject to the full statutory planning mechanism.

Sally Keeble: My hon. Friend has been kind in listening to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) and me argue for our own growth area. Does my hon. Friend agree, on the basis of what he saw in Northampton this morning, that any extra funding allocated to the west Northamptonshire growth area would be money well spent?

Iain Wright: I have seen a lot of my hon. Friend today. I thank her for her hospitality during my visit to Northampton this morning. I have seen the ambition and vitality in that town, of which she is a true champion. May I point out that the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation will receive more than £30.1 million over the next three years? From what I have seen today, I am sure that it will be well spent. I pay tribute, too, to the fantastic residents of the Goldings estate, whom I met at Goldcrest community room. They need to be part of the growth point process, too.

Edward Garnier: Has the Minister noticed that not one of the growth point bids for Leicestershire includes the site of the Co-operative Wholesale Society's bid for a new town of up to 40,000 people in my constituency? Does he think that that is a coincidence?

Iain Wright: The hon. and learned Gentleman and I have clashed over that matter on a number of occasions and he has had an Adjournment debate on the subject. I know that he is a strong champion of his community on the matter. I reiterate that growth point bids, as well as eco-town suggestions, will be brought forward very shortly and will be subject to the statutory planning mechanism.

Gary Streeter: The city of Plymouth has growth point status, which has been approved through the planning process and has the support of local people. Will the Minister tell us how in a joined-up Government we will achieve our growth targets if the Ministry of Defence closes our naval base, as was reported in  The Sunday Times over the weekend?

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about joined-up government. It is important that we concentrate on housing growth and on increasing the supply that this country so sorely needs, but it is also important that we have the infrastructure and economic base to ensure that we have sustainable communities throughout the country.

Denis MacShane: If growth point bids are to succeed, the house builders will need land. I hope that the housing ministerial team will seek to emulate their distinguished predecessor, Harold Macmillan, who built 300,000 houses a year in the 1950s. He did so by building on big gardens and green land in towns and suburbs. Those who oppose any new house building and any release of gardens and land are doing future generations a great disservice. When will the Conservative party copy Harold Macmillan and support the Government Front-Bench—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister does not need to answer that one.

Home Information Packs

Lembit �pik: If she will publish the findings of the home information pack pilot surveys conducted since November 2005.

Caroline Flint: As the House has been told, Ipsos MORI is still in the process of finalising its conclusions. A copy of the research report will be placed in the Library of the House once the project has been finalised.

Lembit �pik: Any professional organisation that conducts a pilot will assess its results before rolling out the policy in question. Has the HIP pilot been evaluated? Did that evaluation prove that HIPs have had a measurable benefit, or did the survey show that there has been no measurable improvement from the introduction of HIPsand is that why the Government have rolled out the policy before evaluating and publishing the outcome of the survey?

Caroline Flint: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have learned from the trials, but we want to give the House a more comprehensive analysis of the information that has been compiled. We have seen already that HIPs can improve the market, and that they are making a difference and providing increased transparency. On average, a pack takes seven to 15 days to prepare, and the people who said that each one would cost 1,000 have been shown to be wrong: a HIP costs 350, and some estate agents are incorporating the cost in their fee. So far, 320,000 HIPs have been issued. We are on a journey, and I want to evaluate how HIPs are bedding in, but it is interesting to see what those who oppose them are doing. Only last week, the Opposition Front-Bench team put out a press release asking for more information about HIPs. They had better make their minds up.

David Drew: Will my honorary friend[Hon. Members: Ooh!] Does she accept that it is particularly important to include information about flooding in a HIP, especially in areas such as the one that I represent? Did the pilot provide any insight in that regard? If not, is it worth looking at areas where flooding has occurred to make sure that such information is included in future HIPs?

Caroline Flint: With my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, I am looking at all the issues to do with housing, planning and flooding. I shall look into the matter that my hon. Friend raises, and I shall be happy to get back to him with some more information. We recognise the risk that flooding poses, but it is a problem that we can deal with in a number of different ways. The result is that new developments can cope with flooding risks, and that means that the housing supply can continue to grow. However, he raises an important point, and I shall be interested to learn whether he believes that information about flooding should be integral to the HIPs process.

Paul Beresford: Will the Minister confirm that the questionnaire about HIPs included a question about the period for which a pack is valid? The housing market is very slow and even on a downturn at the moment, so people selling a home might need to purchase more than one HIP.

Caroline Flint: I am looking at various matters to do with insurance and first-day marketing that my predecessor

Eric Pickles: Who has abandoned the Minister to deal with these matters.

Caroline Flint: No, not at all. My predecessor identified various problems and acted on them, but it is wise for any Minister to take stock as the deadline approaches. I shall be happy to look into the question raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Brian Jenkins: When HIPs are evaluated, will my right hon. Friend look into their effect on people posing as sellers? When such people put their house on the market, young couples incur the expense of a survey, only to find that the house is withdrawn when its market price has been established. It is clear that the people involved have no intention of selling, and their actions merely mislead potential buyers.

Caroline Flint: Yes, there is anecdotal evidence to suggest just that. People are thinking carefully about whether they really want to put their house on the market or should just chance it to see what will happen. Other people are probably better to quote on the matter than Ministers. MyLondonHome, an internet property portal, believes that home information packs will have a positive effect on the house buying and selling process. We welcome that opinion from the people who work in the sector.

Grant Shapps: We have heard today that it does not in fact take four to six days for a HIP to come through, as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright) told me before, but that it takes seven to 15 days. We are getting closer to the truth. Surely, having waited nearly a year for the results of the Ipsos MORI trials on HIPs, and having spent 4 million of taxpayers' money, and still not having had the results, despite HIPs now applying to all shapes and sizes of house, is it not time that the Minister at least took some responsibility for her own decisions and her predecessor's by apologising to the public for spending that 4 million of public money, which has gone absolutely nowhere, as the policy has already been introduced, and has simply been wasted?

Caroline Flint: Was that the question? I tried to detect a question in there.  [Interruption.] Well, we will look at  Hansard to see whether there was actually a question. It is interesting [Interruption.] It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman is standing before the House suggesting that his party is against HIPs, when on Wednesday 13 February the Conservative party issued a press release calling for the inclusion of licensing information.

Mr. Speaker: We will not go there. I call Clive Betts.

Clive Betts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one group of home buyers to have been substantially advantaged by HIPs are first-time buyers, who get information provided up front at no cost to them? Will she reflect, however, that if the Government eventually see their way to including home condition reports in HIPs, first-time buyers will be even better off than they are now?

Caroline Flint: Yes, that is a good point. For those buying properties, it would offer an opportunity not to duplicate activity and in so doing duplicate expense. We will be looking through the findings from the area trials in considering the status of home condition reports, along with other policy areas, and I intend to ensure that we move towards permanent implementation for HIPs by consolidating the transitional arrangements.

Finance (London)

Philip Dunne: What discussions the Government office for London has had with the (a) London Development Agency and (b) Greater London authority on finances.

Hazel Blears: Officials from the Government office for London have had discussions with the GLA and LDA on a range of financial issues, reflecting their responsibility for administering the Government's block grants to those organisations.

Philip Dunne: Following the Deloitte report commissioned by the London assembly last summer, which revealed inadequate justification or accountability for much LDA spending on the initiative of the Mayor or his advisers, what steps has the Minister taken to ensure sufficient statutory safeguards to prevent misuse of public funds?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that in 2005 the LDA took steps to strengthen its project management, delivery arrangements and scrutiny. He will also know that the LDA is accountable to the Mayor, and I hope that he will know that the London assembly is responsible for scrutiny. The Government office for London is responsible for administering the block grants to the GLA, but the checks and balances in relation to action by the Mayor clearly belong to the London assembly, and the LDA is accountable to the Mayor.

Boris Johnson: Is it not time for a full and transparent register of the interests of the Mayor's advisers, so that we can put an end to the scandal by which large sums of LDA money are transferred to groups or bodies with which it later transpires those advisers have some business connection?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that on 15 February, Lee Jasper, to whom I presume he is referring, asked the Mayor to refer any allegations to the police, and was suspended by the Mayor. The hon. Gentleman will also know that five days later on 20 February the police stated that they would not be investigating, and no criminal allegations were reported. He is fully aware of that situation.

Simon Hughes: If on 1 May, nine weeks from now, London council tax payers form a view that the London Development Agency has not been properly managed, that money has been badly spent, that the audit trail is incomplete, and that there is no proper political accountability for the past four years, who should they hold to account? Is there not only one answer to that: the current Mayor of London?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is correct that the best form of accountability is through democracy, and people will have the chance to vote on 1 May. It is interesting that when Michael Portillo was recently asked who he would vote for in the mayoral election, Ken or Boris, he said, More choices, please, so he will not be backing Boris. He also said that it would perhaps be rather good for the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to lose the next election. He has experience of losing

Mr. Speaker: Order. Michael Portillo has left the House.

Greg Hands: Speaking of endorsements for the London Mayor, the Secretary of State will know that the Prime Minister is refusing to endorse Ken Livingstone, and refers simply to the Labour administration at City Hall. It appears that the two have not met in public for some months now. Are the Government supporting Ken Livingstone for Mayor, or are they simply embarrassed by the fact that he is mired in sleaze and maladministration?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are going rather wide of the question. I will try Mr. Neill to see whether he can stay in order.

Bob Neill: I will do my best, Mr. Speaker.
	I am always happy to look the Secretary of State straight in the eye. I ask her to reflect on the fact that her suggestion that the issue is nothing to do with the Government really does not stack up, as they created the institutions in question. When they did so, they claimed that the Greater London authority would be a beacon of transparency and accountability. Would she like to explain what kind of beacon it is, and what kind of transparency it has, given that the Mayor's adviser failed to register the fact that he is chairman of an organisation seeking a grant from the body that employs him, and given that the Mayor's adviser sent an e-mail to an officer telling them to lay off an organisation that happens to be run by one of his associates? If that is transparency, will the Secretary of State not reflect on whether her beacon needs a new battery?

Hazel Blears: I ask the hon. Gentleman to raise his sights a little, although I would never accuse him of digging in the gutter. The GLA has the power to summon the Mayor and the LDA. It has the power to call for the disclosure of documents. It also has a new power for confirmatory hearings. The matter is serious. Do the Opposition really believe in decentralisation, devolution and scrutiny at the local level, which is what they talk about, or are they now saying that the issue is a matter for Government from the centre, not for the GLA? Just to make it clear, I will place on record that I think that Ken Livingstone has been an excellent Mayor for London. If we look at policy, there is congestion charging, better public transport, the Olympics and the regeneration of the city. It is an excellent record.

Housing Stock Transfers

Bob Spink: How many housing stock transfers there have been in the last five years.

Iain Wright: Since 1 January 2003, there have been 105 housing stock transfers by 66 authorities, involving more than 422,000 dwellings, which has levered in 6.4 billion of private finance.

Bob Spink: I am grateful for that response, and I welcome the Government's policy to give tenants more direct control over their homes through non-profit housing associations; I think that that is absolutely right. Will the Minister tell us how that policy can help us to increase the availability of social housing, which is so badly needed in many communities, including my community of Castle Point?

Iain Wright: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question; he raises an interesting point. I have been taking the Housing and Regeneration Bill through Committee, and the relationship and interplay between the new Homes and Communities Agency and the regulator for social housing will be key. Tenants will have a view on what housing is needed in their area, and they need to contact the regulator to make sure that affordable housing is available there.

David Taylor: About 7,500 tenants in North-West Leicestershire have spent many, many months subject to a disgracefully unbalanced 1 million coerced stock transfer campaign by the local authority. When will my hon. Friend be in a position to respond to that district council's proposals, so that the ballot can at long last take place and the deeply damaging cloud of uncertainty can be lifted?

Iain Wright: I agree with my hon. Friend that clouds of uncertainty are bad for tenants. I mentioned the Housing and Regeneration Bill. One of its key provisions is to ensure that it is mandatory for tenants to have a ballot in respect of transfer of ownership of their homes, and I would encourage all local authorities to do that in the meantime.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister congratulate Conservative-run Kettering borough council, of which I am privileged to be a member, which has decided to retain its council housing stock, is well on track to meet its decent homes standards, and is building a record number of affordable homes every year?

Iain Wright: I hope the hon. Gentleman will thank the Government for the increase in council house investment during the past decade. Council investment has increased from 800 per home in 1997 to 1,100 per home this yearthat is a 30 per cent. increase in real terms. We have also made available 3.7 billion to arm's length management organisations to deliver improvements to council housing stock, and we will be spending more than 4 billion over the next comprehensive spending review period on arm's length management organisations. I hope the hon. Gentleman will thank the Government for that unprecedented and sustained investment in council house stock.

Housing Associations (CEOs)

Brian Iddon: What the five highest salaries are in 2007-08 of chief executive officers of housing associations; and if she will make a statement.

Parmjit Dhanda: Information about chief executive salaries appears in housing associations' annual accounts. I do not have information on 2007-08 salaries as the accounting year has not yet ended, but I have information for 2006-07, which was published in  Inside Housing in September last year. The five top CEO salaries were as follows: Places for People258,000, Anchor Trust240,000, Sanctuary225,000, Genesis210,000, and Hanover210,000.

Brian Iddon: There is an interesting link between this question and the previous one, which I should point out. On top of the basic salaries, those five people also received bonuses each year almost equal to my salary as a Back-Bench MP, and should they retire they can receive up to 300,000 as a lump sum. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an example of the pay-to-retain-me culture, and that the boards of housing associations should realise that they are handling public money?

Parmjit Dhanda: If you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, I will not get into the debate on pay for Back-Bench Members, but my hon. Friend makes the reasonable point that the boards of housing associations need to be responsible and show restraint. However, it is right for the boards to make such decisions. They are regulated by the Housing Corporation, which can intervene and has done so in cases of mismanagement. It is also important to remember that there are representatives of local residents on the boards. We should continue to keep the focus on those boards.

Patrick Cormack: What are the qualifications for these characters, and how does the Prime Minister apply?

Parmjit Dhanda: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is interested in applying, but as I said, it is for the boards to decide. There are about 2,000 registered social landlords delivering 2 million homes to about 4 million residents. It is important to remember that what I read out to the House was just the salaries of the top five CEOs, and despite the fact that they are doing a good job, it would be unfair to focus on just the top five.

Unitary Status (East Anglia)

Henry Bellingham: When she next expects to meet representatives of local authorities in East Anglia to discuss Government plans for unitary status.

John Healey: Ministers have no plans to meet local authorities in East Anglia at this stage in the boundary committee's work. I have asked the boundary committee to advise whether it would recommend unitary arrangements for the area in future, but at present it is best that local authorities speak to, meet and deal with the boundary committee, which they are doing.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that I have not yet met a social worker, teacher, fire officer, police officer, planning official or highways engineer who is in favour of the proposals? The only people I have met who are in favour are the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) and a few senior local government officials who are eyeing up large redundancy payments. Why does not the Minister listen to the public, who believe that the proposals will not make any difference to the delivery of efficient local government in East Anglia? Will he listen to the public and scrap those ideas?

John Healey: The case for unitary rather than multi-tier local government is very strong, and we set it out a couple of years ago. Just to be clear to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, let me repeat that there are no proposals for unitary reorganisation in East Anglia at present. That is precisely what I have asked the boundary committee to look at; after discussing the matter in detail with local authorities and others in the area, it will judge whether to recommend to Ministers that there is a good unitary solution for the area in the future. When or if it does that, I will consider it.

John Gummer: I hope that the Minister knows that no local authority, parish council or organisation of any kind, except the Waveney Labour party, is in favour of this abortion called Yartoft, which tries to link Yarmouth and Lowestoft. May I have his absolute undertaking that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not accept any proposition that is so wholly against the views of every single elected authority concerned?

John Healey: I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the guidance that we have given to the boundary committee, because that also sets out the way in which we will consider, and the criteria against which we will consider, any proposals that the boundary committee may make to us at the end of the work it has been asked to do. If he and his hon. Friends want to meet me about that at the appropriate stage, of course I will do so.

Christopher Fraser: Does the Minister accept that any restructuring of local government in Norfolk will divert time and money away from improving front-line public services, and that ultimately it will be the hard-pressed taxpayer who has to pay for the privilege?

John Healey: It is true that any proposal for restructuring local government inevitably raises fierce feelings. It usually raises resistance, particularly from those councils that may not have a future under any arrangements. I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the guidance, too, because it makes it clear that at this stage of the work it is for the boundary committee to formulate a draft alternative proposal, and that
	Any dialogue with, or request for information from, a local authority should not involve the authority having to incur significant expenditure.
	I hope that that is of some reassurance to him and his local authorities.

Eco-towns

Gordon Banks: What contribution eco-towns are expected to make to the supply of housing, with particular reference to affordable homes.

Caroline Flint: Eco-towns offer an exciting opportunity to provide desperately needed new homes for families and first-time buyers, but in a way that is consistent with our climate change objectives. They must have at least 30 per cent. affordable housing, but I am keen to see whether we can achieve even more, with some developments pushing towards 50 per cent.

Gordon Banks: I hope that the Scottish Executive in Holyrood are listening to our commitment in this regard. I note that eco-towns will provide low running cost properties and good access to public transport, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to regenerate our towns and cities at the same time so that one does not succeed at the expense of the other?

Caroline Flint: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the eco-towns of the future, of which we hope to have 10, take into account the areas where they are situated and the links with other communities. I see some real possibilities, particularly in realising a public transport vision in some communities. I understand from my hon. Friend and others from Scotland that the Scottish National party has been quiet on these matters, but I hope it will learn from the ambition and progress here in Westminster to provide homes in a way that meets our climate change objectives.

Gregory Campbell: This morning, the Minister for Social Development in Northern Ireland announced an eco-village for Enniskillen. We welcome all such developments, but may we have an assurance that we will make further progress at a more dynamic pace to try to reassure communities throughout the United Kingdom that we are serious about climate change?

Caroline Flint: We have set ourselves the world-class challenge of making all new homes zero-carbon by 2016. That has put us at the forefront of what we can do with housing and the built environment. Eco-towns, our zero-carbon challenge and our work across Government on climate change put us in a good place to get on top of the issue, so that the Government can lead and we can facilitate and enable local authorities and businessesand the public, who also want to do the right thingto play their parts.

Social Housing

Eric Martlew: What assessment she has made of the potential of local housing companies to increase available social housing stock.

Iain Wright: Local housing companies have the potential to contribute significantly to the target of 200,000 new homes on surplus public sector land by 2016. English Partnerships is working with 14 local authorities on developing the local housing company model. That will provide an accurate basis for assessing its potential, but early indications suggest that it may be possible, through the model, to deliver 15 to 20 per cent. more affordable housing on each site than traditional disposal and planning processes would deliver.

Eric Martlew: Will the Minister expand on the benefits of local housing companies in providing extra resources for local authorities and extra affordable houses in my constituency and others?

Iain Wright: The model places local authorities at the very heart of the development process, thereby affording councils greater influence over such matters as the quality and mix of houses. To respond directly to my hon. Friend, I should say that, crucially, it allows councils to benefit from the increasing value of land on the site which can be ploughed back into affordable housing. I am taking a keen and personal interest in the 14 pilot areas for local housing companies and I hope that more councils will consider that model in future.

Topical Questions

Peter Bone: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Hazel Blears: My Department is responsible for achieving the delivery of 3 million new homes by 2020 and for encouraging active, empowered and cohesive communities right across England.

Peter Bone: Unfortunately, the Secretary of State did not mention people who sleep rough. According to Government figures, nobody is sleeping rough in Wellingborough, Rushden or the rest of Northamptonshire, and fewer than 500 are doing so in the whole of England. Recently, I attended the opening of a night shelter at the Full Gospel church in Rushden. It was immediately occupied by five rough sleepers. If the Government do not recognise the problem, how can they solve it?

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I make an appeal to the House: supplementary questions must be brief.

Iain Wright: Our homelessness policy has been tremendously successful, particularly in respect of the worst type of homelessnessrough sleeping. The number involved has reduced to 498 from last year. I understand the mechanics of what the hon. Gentleman is saying in terms of a 0 to 10 categorisation, and I have pledged to look at that. However, we are in a fantastic phase of homelessness policy. We are moving forward from an ad hoc situationtrying to find somebody a bed for the nightto making sure that we address the real, underlying problems of homelessness and rough sleeping. We are looking at skills and training and have just ploughed the biggest cash injection ever into homelessness services. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be pleased with that.

Andrew Love: Ministers will be aware of concern that the replacement for the neighbourhood renewal fund is a fund focused exclusively on unemployment. There is concern that there should be continuing funding for social regeneration, particularly in deprived areas; I am thinking particularly of building communities and ensuring that people have a voice at a local level. What further consideration are Ministers giving to ensuring that there is that voice at a local level and that some of those social regeneration projects continue?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. He will know that the neighbourhood renewal fund has been extremely successful in tackling crime and improving educational performance, particularly in our poorest communities. The working neighbourhoods fund is specifically focused on tackling worklessness, because in some of the poorest communities there are several generations of people who have not worked. It is absolutely crucial that we tackle that.
	My hon. Friend will also know that the local area agreement process is built on making sure that every citizen has a voice on the priorities for their communities. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that although his authority will not get the neighbourhood renewal fund, there will be a transition authority for the new working neighbourhoods fund, which is 1.5 billion over the next three years for those authorities in England.

Joan Walley: Will the Minister take a very close look at the representations made by the six local authorities that each have less than half the sum that they need for the Supporting People programme? Will she look closely at speeding up the pace of change of the grant formula and have urgent talks with Stoke-on-Trent city council to see whether we can use underspend from other areas or whether, through talks with the regional Minister, we can find a way to get the money that we need now rather than having to wait 13 years before we get the allocation we need?

Hazel Blears: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that issue. She has an excellent record on campaigning not only on Supporting People but on getting more housing and facilities in her area. The Supporting People programme helps hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people in our communities to get supported housing, and there is now 1.5 billion in the programme. I certainly undertake to look at the points that she has raised about accelerating the programme and ensuring that we direct the funds to the places where it really matters. I think that everybody in this House would agree that the Supporting People policy has been one of the most successful, particularly in working with the voluntary sector.

Eric Pickles: On 27 November last year, the Secretary of State told the House that the Government had no plans for a revaluation of council tax. She will be painfully aware that that statement was at considerable variance with the actuality. Documents released by her Department show that since 2005 the Government have spent at least 6 million on preparing for revaluation. Will she withdraw her statement of 27 November and apologise for its inaccuracy?

Hazel Blears: I certainly will not. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is what I have said many times before at this Dispatch Boxthat there are no plans for a revaluation in the lifetime of this Parliament, and certainly not before 2010 or 2011. We now have a three-year local government settlement that provides the certainty, stability and predictability that local authorities need. To be honest, the report in  The Sunday Telegraph is simply more scaremongering. No revaluationI do not know how many times I have to say it.

Eric Pickles: It was the right hon. Lady's Department's own work; we should be clear that we have this information only because officials failed to obliterate the words beneath blacked-out paragraphs in the released documents. The documents show that many thousands of households are paying more council tax than they should be, and that those errors have been kept secretin the Government's own wordsowing to the
	adverse press coverage this could generate in the current climate.
	Will she now tell us the true number of households in the wrong band? Is it more than 400,000? Or will we have to rely on the vagaries of her Department's magic marker to know the truth?

Hazel Blears: I try to be kind to the hon. GentlemanI genuinely dobut I have to say to him that by choosing this particular issue he is on very shaky ground. He will know that the document to which he refers is more than two years old, from before we passed the legislation dealing with this issue. There will be individual properties that are in the wrong council tax band, and there is a process for people to make an appeal for that to be addressed, but for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there will be hundreds of thousands is patently untrue, and scaremongering.

Ian Lucas: The Secretary of State kindly wrote to me last week suggesting that I hold a citizenship day event in my constituency. Does she agree that it would be an even better idea to combine a citizenship day with a Britain day so that we can celebrate the virtues of British citizenship?

Parmjit Dhanda: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. We have put together a pack to encourage local authorities to celebrate citizenship, but to do it in their own local way. Whether that reflects what works best in Wrexham or across the whole of our nation, I hope that it is something that local authorities take an active interest in, and we will continue to support it from the Department.

Eric Martlew: Last year, the Department for Communities and Local Government decided not to reorganise Cumbria, but to leave it under a two-tier authority. When that decision, which I supported, was announced, the six district councils and the county council pledged to work together to reduce waste, save money and improve services. Will the Secretary of State write to those councils and ask them what progress they have made on that pledge?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right: we decided last year not to proceed with the unitary proposals from Cumbria, and the onus is now on the county and district councils to work together more closely. He may be interested to know that the Leadership Centre for Local Government is involved in helping them to do just that, and that over the next three years 380 million will be made available to help councils to improve and become more efficient. Part of the way they need to do that will be to work together more closely. I hope that his councils will draw on those funds, and on the expertise that we are making available to them.

Julia Goldsworthy: Regional Ministers have now been in post for more than six months, yet still there is no structure to hold them to account. Does the Secretary of State not think that it would be a better idea to get rid of them altogether, as these unaccountable entities are nothing more than Government representatives in the region, rather than the region's representatives in Government? Is not the truth that they are nothing more than a waste of space?

Hazel Blears: I am very disappointed by the hon. Lady's approach to this issue, from a party that is supposedly committed to devolution and decentralisation. Regional Ministers have performed an excellent function over the last few months, ensuring that some of the organisations in the region are more accountable to the people of this country, and that we are able to question and scrutinise the activity of many of those organisations. I would have hoped that the Liberal Democrat party, supposedly a localist party, would want to see more devolution

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will not go there.

Andrew MacKinlay: I shall be interested to see which Cabinet attendee steps up to the plate to respond to my question on the Thames Gateway, particularly as I am complaining again about the absence of joined-up government in the prosecution of the Prime Minister's laudable objective of regeneration in the gateway. Why is it that someone in the Department is frustrating the development of the Thames Gateway by refusing to approve the eastern region spatial strategy? That is leading to paralysis of decision making, a disincentive to investors

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Caroline Flint: rose

Andrew MacKinlay: You get the drift.

Caroline Flint: I get the drift, most certainly. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue. On 4 March, I will be chairing the Thames Gateway strategic partnership. It is my intention over the months ahead to identify clearly what we need to do across Government and in the Department to make progress. Considerable progress has been made, but there is more to be done. The new Homes and Communities Agency, under Sir Bob Kerslake, will be taking on that strategic responsibility. I will be working with him to ensure that we make more progress and ensure even greater success for all the communities in the Thames Gateway area.

Alistair Burt: On that very point, I still do not think that we have had an explanation from the Government of why, after years of poor performance by the Department in the management of the Thames Gateway, and a very damning Public Accounts Committee report last November, the chief executive of barely a year was sacked but the Minister responsible for the policy has received a promotion. Could we now have that explanation?

Caroline Flint: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that some of the content of the PAC report is clearly out of date. Much progress has been made, and there is more to be done. This is an ambitious project. A lot is required nationally, regionally and locally in order to deliver outcomes, and although there is constructive criticism to be made, we have to ensure that we highlight the fantastic things that have already been done in the Thames Gateway with regard to jobs, homes and the environment. Constructive criticism is always important, but let us not lose sight of that.

John Mann: When a school, such as North Wheatley in my constituency, is flooded in July and again in January, is it not incumbent on the local authority to rebuild the school as new in conjunction with the Environment Agency?

John Healey: It is certainly incumbent on the local education authority, working with the local authority, to take every step that it can to get the kids back into their classrooms so that they do not lose out on their education. I well remember the North Wheatley school, which I visited in the summer along with the North Leverton primary school, which was also flooded. I will look into the matter for my hon. Friend, and if I can assist as I did previously, I will do so.

Jim Devine: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing agree to meet me and other concerned Members of Parliament of all parties who have major anxieties about land maintenance companies, such as Greenbelt Group Ltd, which owns the common land on new estates in perpetuity, charges home owners excessive costs, provides little or no service and then sends threatening and bullying letters to my constituents and others?

Caroline Flint: I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and others who think that that is an important concern for their constituents.

Simon Burns: Are Ministers aware that MCL, the Government's consultants on funding the national bus concessions scheme, has estimated that Chelmsford needs 1.1 million extra to be fully funded? Are Ministers also aware that Chelmsford will get only 413,000a shortfall of 738,000? The current scheme, which starts at 9 am, will have to meet the statutory minimum time set by the Government at 9.30 am. Will Ministers reconsider, fund the scheme properly and stop insulting my constituents by writing to me and trying to blame the borough council rather than themselves for failing to fund the scheme fully?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a significant amount of extra investment has been made in concessionary bus schemes for pensioners and disabled people, in a way that has never previously been known in this country. That represents tremendous progress. He also knows that the Local Government Association requested that the extra funding for concessionary fares should be made in a specific grant and ring-fenced, contrary to the rest of our policies. I agreed to do that, and 212 milliona generous sumhas been allocated and will meet the needs of authorities to provide concessionary fares.

Gambling Policy

Andy Burnham: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on casino policy.
	Today I am laying a draft order identifying 16 local authorities that will be authorised to license the eight large and eight small casinos permitted by the Gambling Act 2005. I do not intend to authorise a regional casino.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) established the casino advisory panel to advise on the location of the 17 new casinos permitted by the Act. The panel considered applications from 68 local authorities and made its recommendations after detailed consideration.
	Before I make further progress, the House will want to know that, since we last discussed those matters, the chair of the independent panel, Professor Stephen Crow, has passed away. I hope that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to his family and paying tribute to the integrity and dedication that he brought to his role.
	Last March, an order incorporating the panel's recommendations was defeated in another place. Since then, the Government have reflected on the range of views expressed in both Houses and beyond. There was a consensus that the eight large and eight small casino licences should be awarded to the 16 licensing authorities identified by the casino advisory panel. That view was expressed by Opposition Front Benchers and their lordships in their message to this House, calling for the 16 to be incorporated in a fresh order.
	Following last year's local elections, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) invited all 16 councils to state whether it remained their wish to license a new casino. All 16 have requested inclusion in the new order.
	However, there was and is no consensus on a regional casino. There are important differences between the regional casino on the one hand and the large and small casinos on the other. The regional casino would have been allowed up to 1,250 unlimited stake and prize gaming machinessomething not previously seen in the United Kingdom. The large and small casinos would be allowed to offer 150 and 80 category B1 gaming machines respectively, with a maximum 2 stake and 4,000 prize. B1 machines are already in use in Britain today.
	There are two principal and independent reasons for my decision not to proceed with a regional casino. First, concerns were expressed in both Houses about the potential negative impact of a regional casino operating on the proposed scale. I have not seen anything to suggest that the will of Parliament has changed. Secondly, I have considered the evidence, both old and new, on the impact of regional casinos. This evidence, including the scoping study by Lancaster university, which I am laying in the House today, points towards the uncertainty of the risks involved and does not dispel those anxieties.
	The Gambling Commission's prevalence study, published in September, highlights the fact that problem gambling, although small, remains persistent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has concluded that regional casinos are likely to have no, or only marginal net benefits compared with other means of economic and social regeneration. In the light of that and the evidence about the uncertain levels of risk, I do not intend to authorise a regional casino.
	I know that my decision will disappoint many in Manchester, particularly east Manchester, one of the most deprived areas of the country. Taking forward the conclusions of the report published today, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will lead an ad hoc ministerial group to work with Manchester council and its partners to identify and bring forward a range of regeneration alternatives. The group will produce its first report by the end of March. Considerable support has been expressed in both Houses for the regeneration of Blackpool. My right hon. Friend has today announced a package of investment for the town worth close to 300 million.
	I seek the consent of the House to authorise eight small and eight large casinos, because I am satisfied that they do not pose the same level of risk [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should please allow the Secretary of State to speak.

Andy Burnham: I am satisfied that they do not pose the same level of risk to the public as a regional casino. That said, my instinct is to proceed with caution at all times considering measures to protect young and vulnerable people. Therefore, any new casinos authorised by the order will be required to abide by strict new rules, including in respect of: providing non-gambling areas where customers can take a break from gambling; prohibiting the provision of free drinks to customers while they are gambling; prohibiting the use of credit cards to purchase chips or play gaming machines; ensuring that any cash machines are located away from gaming areas; and requiring casinos to have policies to identify problem gamblers and provide information about support for addiction. Operators who break those rules risk losing their licence, fines and up to 51 weeks' imprisonment.
	Taken together, those measures make up the toughest regulatory regime for gambling in the world, but today I am signalling my intention to go further still. Regulators, legislators, operators and owners all have a duty to act in a socially responsible manner, accepting that for some gambling is an addiction, not a leisure pursuit. I was surprised to find that only 360 of the 3,800 licensed operators have so far made contributions to the Responsibility in Gambling Trust this year, which offers advice and treatment to people with gambling addictions and is chaired so ably by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). That is not acceptable. Promises were made, and I expect them to be kept.
	The Archbishop of Canterbury has called for the introduction of a statutory levy. Unless the industry delivers a substantial increase in contributions by the end of this year and makes contributions in a timely fashion, I will seek the approval of the House for a statutory levy, at a rate to be determined. Secondly, I believe that it is a good principle that all casinos are subject to a period of closure every day, when individuals are required to leave the premises. Currently, casinos are prevented from offering gambling over 24 hours, unless they apply to local authorities for an extension. However, I wish to rule out the possibility that some may remain open round the clock, by requiring them to close their doors for at least six hours.
	In conclusion, the order we are laying today is an enabling order, giving 16 local authorities the ability to proceed with plans for small and large casinos. Whether to do so is entirely a matter for local decision, and I hope that local people will be consulted and involved at all stages.
	Small and large casinos will bring local economic benefits and provide enabling development with the potential to create new community facilities. But, as the Lancaster study concludes, there are costs and benefits of casino development that need to be weighed in the balance. That is why I shall at all times proceed with caution, and continue to keep gambling policy under review according to my responsibilities under the Act, to take advice from the Gambling Commission, and to be guided by the evidence. I commend this statement to the House.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance notice of his statement. I appreciate that he is new to his brief, and that not all the issues surrounding the statement are of his own making. I welcome certain elements of the statement, particularly the commitment to increased resources going to the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, which is run with great tenacity by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). We also add our condolences to the family of Professor Stephen Crow.
	The Secretary of State mentioned his concerns about problem gambling. The Government's own problem gambling prevalence study, published in September, identified internet gambling as one of the fastest growing areas of problem gambling, yet he did not mention it. Is he aware that nearly one in 10 adults who gamble online have an addiction? Do the Government have a policy to prevent online gambling addiction? If so, why did the Prime Minister, in his last Budget as Chancellor, introduce a new 15 per cent. tax for online gambling operators? This has resulted in not a single one re-registering in the UK, where children and other vulnerable groups are protected by much safer and stronger regulations. Does the Secretary of State now think that it was wrong to liberalise gambling advertising in September, in a way that has made it easier for overseas gambling operators, who are not subject to those regulations, to promote their online products in the UK? In the absence of a coherent approach to problem gambling, is there not a danger that the Government's efforts to appear tough on the issue will be perceived more as PR than reality?
	The Government's policy on casinos appears even more confused. First, there was to be no limit on the number of super-casinos, then the limit was 96. Then it was 40, then eight, and then one. Today it is none. There is to be no super-casino, but 16 larger casinos instead. That is not so much a U-turn as an S-bend. The House will remember that this policy started way back in 2005, the year that saw the then Deputy Prime Minister gallivanting in a cowboy outfit around the ranch of Philip Anschutz, who was then hoping for a super-casino licence.
	Given the time and money that have been wasted since then, will the Secretary of State at the very least apologise to the people of Manchester and Blackpool? Will he contest the legal action that councils there and in other parts of the country might bring to retrieve the costs of their super-casino bids, which were made in good faith but have now turned out to be a total waste of money?
	The Prime Minister said that he was going to end sofa government. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain why the super-casino decision was taken last July without consulting the Cabinet? He has spoken of new rules for the new casinos. Will he acknowledge, however, that none of the rules in his statement is new, and that they are all covered by existing Gambling Commission licensing conditions?
	Finally, will the Secretary of State show me one paragraph in the Department for Communities and Local Government report on alternative regeneration strategies that is not already known to Manchester, Blackpool or any other council trying to regenerate? Is there not a risk that this report will be seen as yet another piece of hurried window-dressing for a decision that has already been made from on high?
	Our position on the 16 larger casinos remains unchanged. It looks as though the Government might finally have fumbled and stumbled their way to more or less the right solution, but, until they have a coherent anti-problem-gambling strategy, are we not being faced with the worst possible option for the industry, for the public, and for gambling addictsnamely, a jumble of half-baked policies, zigzags and U-turns?

Andy Burnham: It took time, but we got there in the end, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's indication of support for the order. I am also grateful for his words of support about the Responsibility in Gambling Trust and I would like to reiterate what I said in my statementthat our intention to introduce a statutory levy is very real, unless we see a significant improvement and unless payments are made in a more timely fashion. I understand that the trust needs to plan and make preparations for the year ahead. I emphasise again the importance of proceeding in a timely manner, and I hope that that will be heard beyond the House.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right to raise issues around online gambling. There is, of course, a connection between today's statement and the growing popularity of online gambling, but my statement was specifically about casino policy, which is why I did not deal with online gambling directly in it. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern, however, which is why we have asked the Gambling Commission to conduct further research of the data in order to find out more about the risks and causes of problem gambling on the internet. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the prevalence study, which found that the less than 1 per cent. level of problem gambling has remained unchanged. There can be no possibility of complacency on that matter, but the overall rate remains unchanged, although there has been an increase in online and other forms of gambling. As I say, we are not complacent and we keep these matters under review.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned super-casinos and referred to the 16 large casinos, so let me explain again that today's order authorises eight large and eight small casinos, which are very different in character. They will include only machines that are currently available in casinos that are operational today. That is why I am satisfied that it is appropriate to authorise and move forward with these 16 identified casinos.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would apologise to Manchester and Blackpool, but if I understood it correctly, it was his policy to stand up against the potential for a casino in those locations, so he should make that point clear. We have put together a package of support for Blackpool, which I believe will be widely welcomed across the House and in the other place. It is worth close to 300 million and will take Blackpool further forward. We will also look closely into issues surrounding the regeneration of east Manchester, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has made some announcements today that will begin that process. There is a serious intention to look into alternatives to casino-led regeneration.
	On the hon. Gentleman's last point about why there was no further action since last July, I remind him that all this did not begin last July, but in the House of Lords in March. It would have been arrogant of the Government not to have reflected on the views expressed in the other place and in this House, as we wanted carefully to consider how to take forward a casino policy that has a degree of consensus in Parliament. Following the local elections, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to local authoritiesrightly, in my view, as the change of political complexion could have led to the emergence of different views on casino policy. Towards the end of last year, some local authorities asked for more time to make their judgments about whether to proceed with casinos, but by the end of the year they had all come back to us, indicating a wish to proceed. I then considered the evidence and consulted Cabinet colleagues in the devolved Administrations, which brings us to today's process. I believe that we were right to listen to concerns and in the end, as the hon. Gentleman himself concluded, the order before us is the right order.

Tony Lloyd: May I tell my right hon. Friend that people in Manchester will not think it arrogant of the Government but bonkers of them to accept the will of the non-elected House of Lords, particularly at the expense of 3,000 jobs for people in my constituency and surrounding areas? This must be very disappointing for my constituents, so may I ask the Secretary of State very specifically for an absolute guarantee that the Government will now commit themselves to finding the regeneration structures that will ensure that the still high levels of poverty in the city of Manchester are dealt with? I look to my right hon. Friend to give that commitment from the Dispatch Box today.

Andy Burnham: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I can assure him on his main point that the Government have the serious intent and commitment to work quickly to establish the alternatives for regeneration. Proposals are already on the table, some put forward by Manchester city council, and if we all work quickly to evaluate them, we should be able to produce a first report by the end of March, as I said.
	As for my hon. Friend's description of the decision as bonkers, it should be stressed that the regional casino was a very different entity from the large and small casinos, not just in terms of the number of machines but, principally, because it would have introduced something entirely new to the country. The views expressed in the House of Lords were clear, but in this House, too, there was concern and uncertainty about whether that was the right way to proceed. Having reflected on all those factors, I decided that it was not the right way to proceed, but I was able to conclude that the eight large and eight small casinos are acceptable.
	I hear what my hon. Friend says, however. We will work quickly to identify alternative regeneration possibilities, and I hope he will feel encouraged by that.

Don Foster: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for giving notice of his statement. I join him in his condolences to the family of Professor Stephen Crow.
	As the Secretary of State said, it was back in March last year that Liberal Democrats in both Houses proposed a mechanism by which to proceed with the eight large and eight small casinos. Despite the answer that he gave earlier, I fail to understand why there have been 11 months of needless delay.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important for local people to be consulted on more than just planning for specific casino proposals? Will he explain how that will happen? I welcome today's publication of the two reports, but the scoping study was due to be completed in November 2006. Why has there been a 16-month delay?
	As we have heard, the Government initially wanted, and voted for, an unlimited number of super-casinos. Then they wanted eight, then one, and now they have dropped the idea altogether. Has not their flip-flopping led councils on an expensive wild goose chase? We understand that 1 million of taxpayers' money has been wasted.
	I too welcome the extra help for Blackpool and Manchester, but given that the Secretary of State did not answer the question asked by the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), how does he respond to Manchester's claim that much of the rumoured help is already in the pipeline? Does he accept that while we debate the introduction of 16 casinos, far more are creeping into the country through the back door? In 2005 the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), then Minister with responsibility for gambling, said,
	we can say with certainty that there will be no more than 150 casinos.[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 January 2005; c. 718.]
	We know that there are already 144 casinos, and if we add 16, the total reaches 160. However, will the Secretary of State confirm that according to the Government's latest figures, up to 125 applications under the Gaming Act 1968 are still in the pipeline? That brings the total to not 150, but 285. So was not the former Minister wrong? What is the Secretary of State's estimate of the likely number of casinos?
	I congratulate the Secretary of State on being consistent in one respect. He is the third successive Secretary of State since 2003 to threaten a compulsory levy if the gambling industry, most notably the internet gambling industry, does not contribute more to the Responsibility in Gambling Trust. He wants a substantial increase, but without a clear target and deadline, does he not risk sounding like the boy who cried wolf?
	The Government may have arrived at the right solution in the end, but the process of reaching it has been a sorry saga of dithering, wasted opportunities and considerable cost.

Andy Burnham: Although I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, I could not work out whether he supported the order; but let me take him on directly in regard to his accusation about dithering. He spoke of 11 months of delay. Surely it would have been wrong not to reflect on the deep concerns expressed on both sides of both Houses, and wrong not to take soundings from the local authorities involved. We allowed time for local consideration of the issues, and I feel comfortable that that was the right way to proceed.
	I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the consultation of local people. This is essentially an enabling order. It is right for the decision to be made at local level, and I expect local authorities not just to use the powers and observe the requirements to consult provided by the Gambling Act 2005 but, as good practice, to consult local people and communities at every stage of the process, particularly when the detail of the proposal is clear. It is very important that there is an expectation of consultation all the way through.
	On the number of casinos under the 1968 Act, the hon. Gentleman put out figures last week claiming that potentially 300 casinos were in the offing. They are not our figures; I do not recognise them at all. There could not under any scenario be anything close to 300. He is right that 144 are in operation. The order would allow for 16 more. Others have been turned down and are awaiting appeal, and others are being processed by the Gambling Commission, but the numbers come nowhere near the figures that he published last week.
	May I say a word about the legislation that we have introduced? Under the old 1968 Act system, the House had no control over the proliferation of new casinos. Applications could be authorised through a local process. However, under the Gambling Act 2005, which we passed in this Parliament, the will of Parliament has to be heard before any new casinos can be created, and as the hon. Gentleman knows, we suspended further applications under the 1968 Act some time ago.
	I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments. I think we responded rightly to the concerns raised, and I hope that he and his colleagues will support the order when it comes before the House.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend referred to the ad hoc ministerial group that is to be set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to work with Manchester city council on regeneration alternatives. In her letter to the leader of the council today, she talks about
	replicating the kind of job creation numbers that the casino could have delivered.
	While my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) of course has a primary interest in the location of the casino, because the jobs would have been spread widely all Manchester Members of Parliament have an interest in job creation and regeneration, and I should be grateful for an assurance that the Gorton constituency will be well included in such plans.

Andy Burnham: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I am sure that he will join me in celebrating the success of the Manchester economy in recent times, and that he would want to pay tribute to the city council for the remarkable job it has done in bringing Manchester around from its position in the 1980s and early 1990s. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government leads on regeneration matters, and I know that she was listening carefully to his comments.
	Of course, in east Manchester we are building on the legacy of a successful Commonwealth games. My Department has a role to play in ensuring that we build on that sporting legacy and further enhance the sporting potential of that region, and use it as a catalyst for regeneration. As we have seen, sport can be a catalyst for regeneration. I give my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) an assuranceas I did a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Centralthat we will work with good intent to develop a strong package that will respond to the needs that Manchester city council has put to us.

John Whittingdale: Is the Secretary of State aware that most people will regard his statement this afternoon as the final chapter in a saga of total shambles and incompetence? Does he understand the resentment that is bound to be felt in authorities such as Blackpool that chose to put in an application only for a regional casino licence? It is one thing to lose in fair competition, but the competition has now been scrapped entirely. Should such councils not at least have another opportunity to apply for a licence for a large or small casino?

Andy Burnham: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who is Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, as I know that he has taken a close interest in these matters over a long period. I think, however, that it is also true that he supported the recent gambling legislation when it passed through this House, so although he talks about a long saga it appears that he has supported the Government position fairly consistently throughout the process.
	On the Blackpool and Manchester question, it is important to say that when local authorities put forward applications it was entirely their own decision whether to apply to the independent advisory panel for one of the licences. Although I was not in the Department at the time, I understand that authorities that did not bid for all the potential licences were advised that they could do so should they wish to change their original bid, but Blackpool and Manchester remained as bidders purely for the regional licence. It is a matter for local authorities to decide their own strategies in pursuit of regeneration opportunities. It would be entirely wrong for me to reopen that process and allow a new process to begin. We should proceed with the eight and eight locations, as the panel advised us to do.

Gordon Marsden: My right hon. Friend knows full well that his Department instigated the taskforce for Blackpool in the context of very strong support last year in both Houses for Blackpool's position. He referred to the statement and document from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about Blackpool's funding package. It remains to be seen how much of that is new and focused money, and that will obviously be examined carefully. Given the moral responsibility that his Department bears in this issue, will he use his good officeshis strongest officesto work with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to ensure that those proposals are for new money and that they begin to fill the regeneration hole left by the removal of the prospect of a super-casino in Blackpool? Will he use his best endeavours, with his senior officials

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State gets the point. We must have brief questions and answers.  [Interruption.] Short and sharp would be fine.

Andy Burnham: I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) for the way in which they have pursued Blackpool's case in recent times. As a north-west MP, I know that, along with other Members across the House, people agree and sympathise with the case that my hon. Friends have made for regeneration in Blackpool. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has asked the Government office for the north-west to report back each quarter on progress made against the taskforce recommendations published today. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South that there is a further proposal for the creation of an events site at the tower festival headland to showcase Blackpool's cultural connections and provide a centrepiece so that it becomes the capital of dance. That is a serious proposal; it is being considered by my Department, and we hope to make further progress on it shortly.

John Greenway: I thank the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) for their support for the Responsibility in Gambling Trust. May I point out to the Secretary of State and the House that funding for the treatment of problem gambling has increased more than tenfold since the trust was formed six years ago? Last year, we launched the gambleaware website. We have a business plan and we are launching a problem gambling national strategy later this year. But this has to be funded, and I welcome his support. The major bookmakers, casino operators and trade associations all support the trust. Will he ask the Gambling Commission to use the voluntary funding mechanism agreed between the trust and the trade associations in assessing the licence obligations of other operators who are currently not paying the trust?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman's welcome for what we have announced today is heartening. I assure him that this is not an empty threat: this system has a final chance to work on a voluntary basis. It might be shown not to work, and I shall be interested to hear his views on whether it is working as we make progress from this point before making a final determination on whether we need a statutory levy. I pay tribute to him and to his colleagues at the trust. The gambleaware website has been a very welcome development. I shall listen to him carefully over the coming months before deciding whether we need to take further action on the status of the levy.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) made the point about spin-off job creation not only in east Manchester but throughout the east side of Greater Manchester. When the ad hoc ministerial group that has been announced identifies and proposes a range of regeneration alternatives, will the Secretary of State ensure that they are of an equal strategic nature in respect of the wider eastern part of Greater Manchester, as undoubtedly the spin-off job creation from the super-casino proposals would have extended into constituencies such as mine?

Andy Burnham: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and I point him towards the work that the Department for Communities and Local Government has published today, because it considers the question of a possible displacement of jobs by a regional casino. It also questioned the extent to which jobs created would be truly additional. The task facing the ad hoc group is to identify proposals that will have a lasting benefit for the whole of the Manchester economy, and I am confident that it can come forward with such a package.

John Leech: Most Members will be aware that I was never in favour of a super-casino for east Manchester, mainly because I had serious doubts that it was a suitable vehicle for regeneration. Given that the Government have now accepted that a super-casino would not deliver the regeneration that east Manchester deserves, they needed to come up with concrete proposals to create skilled local jobs for local people. The announcement today is merely a vague set of pre-election rumours or, as the  Manchester Evening News described it, a piecemeal package of possibilities

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman, who is a newer Member, is keen to put his message across, but if we do not have short, sharp questions and responses, we cannot get through this statement.

Andy Burnham: Concrete proposals are exactly what we intend to make: that is the purpose of the group that we have established. As I said in my statement, it will produce its first report by the end of March. There was a separate process set up for Blackpool which started work ahead of this process. I do not think that anyone would question the proposals offered to Blackpool, but we want concrete proposals for east Manchester that constitute a sustainable package that will have a wider beneficial impact across the city's economy.

Ken Purchase: I congratulate the Secretary of State on rowing back on these proposals. In Wolverhampton, there is already ample opportunity for gambling, with a raft of betting shops, bingo halls

Dennis Skinner: A racecourse.

Ken Purchase: And racecourses and so on. Indeed, masses of illicit cash are already generated through prostitution and drugs. It is the ultimate insult to people in Wolverhampton to talk about regeneration on the back of a game of pitch and toss in a casino. That should be outwith the lexicon of Labour policies.

Andy Burnham: The issue is entirely a matter for local decision making. I would be shocked and amazed if my hon. Friend were not able to make his views heard as forcefully locally as he does in this House. I refer him to the detailed work done by Newham council to gauge the level of support locally for any proposed casino. I would hope that any local authority, as a matter of good practice, would involve local people before making a final decision on what are, as he rightly says, very important matters.

Hugo Swire: I have some sympathy with the Secretary of State, who was left holding the parcel when the music stopped on this fiasco, which has been going on for far too long. It is worth pointing out that we could have got there so much more quickly had his predecessor agreed to reintroduce a single order, as we suggested about a year ago. The statement is rather ambitiously called Gambling Policy, which would be a start as far as the Government are concerned. Is it still part of the Government's policy to make Britain the online gambling capital of the world, and what work has his Department done since the Ascot summit?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman says that we could have got there more quickly; I have been through the process by which we arrived at the conclusion today, and while we could say many things about it, the one thing that we could not say is that it has not been deliberative and consultative. We have shown a willingness to listen, but as I said to the shadow Secretary of State, it is important that we keep everything under review and consider the effect and prevalence of online gambling when making any decisions about gambling in casinos or elsewhere. I intend to do precisely that and there will be a further prevalence study. As I say, the last one showed that while we might feel that levels of problem gambling are uncomfortably high, they are not increasing.

Sandra Osborne: In relation to gambling policies, could it be the case that the smaller casinos, in particular, result in further unfair competition for bingo halls and seaside arcades? As the Secretary of State knows, those businesses have already suffered drastic reductions in their incomes and also increased compliance costs. What urgent action will he take to address that problem as we approach the beginning of the season?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The bingo industry and bingo clubs play an important part in the constituencies of many people in this House, including mine, as do amusement arcades in seaside towns. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport regularly meets the representatives of both industries. We continue to listen carefully to their views and in doing so we consider at all times the important social role played by bingo halls in particular.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Secretary of State elaborate on the part of his statement where he drew a distinction between the proposal for 16 small and large casinos and the previous proposal for a regional casino? He said that he was satisfied that the proposed casinos do not pose the same level of risk to the public as a regional casino. Will he outline, then, what level of risk the present proposal poses to the public where those casinos will be situated?

Andy Burnham: I apologise if that was not clear enough in my statement. The point that I was making was that we are dealing with a known quantity: category B1 gaming machines. The difference is that the proposal for a regional casino would have introduced a large number of unlimited stake and prize gaming machinescategory A machineswhich would have been entirely new to the UK. That is the clear distinction. The regional casino would also have been a much larger entity. There are clear differences and those are the issues that I have considered. Given that there are already category B1 machines in existing casinos in this country, I am satisfied that on the balance of risks the eight small and eight large casinos can safely proceed.

Graham Stringer: The statement means the loss of 3,500 jobs for Manchester, which were won in a fair and open competition, yet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, in a letter to Manchester city council, said that there will be no special treatment and no immediate creation of new jobs. Why are we not trying to overturn the views of the bishops and unelected peers in the other place, who put us in this situation, or giving Manchester special treatment to replace the jobs that will be lost because of the decisions in this statement?

Andy Burnham: I feel that it would have been wrong simply to return to the House with the same order as was defeated in another place last March. However, Manchester's case for east Manchester and the need for regeneration is well made, and that is why the ad hoc group has been established. I encourage my hon. Friend to reserve judgment until that group has completed its work. At that point, he will be entitled to judge whether this proposal is an acceptable package as an alternative to a regional casino. The decision was clearly taken on the balance of evidence about a regional casino and, as I have just explained to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), the risks that that could have posed to the public.

Graham Brady: When the Government changed their mind about Northern Rock, the private sector preferred bidders were compensated in full for the cost of their bids. Why are the Government not treating the public sector bidders in the same way in this instance?

Andy Burnham: As I said to the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), it was entirely for local authorities to decide whether or not to pursue an application for any of the three categories of casino authorised under the 2005 Act. As part of the process, the independent panels went back to the local authorities that bid to say that they could extend their range of applications at any time. At least one local authority that bid for a regional casino got a large casino in the end because it put in a bid for a large casino, too. The decisions about what to bid for were made locally and local authorities have to live with the consequences of those decisions.

John Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of London's O2 arena shows that it is perfectly possible for the private sector, working with the public sector, to help regenerate large areas by means of leisure complexes? They can do that without having to resort to super-casinos, whose machines offering unlimited stakes and prizes are highly addictive and could have raised our rate of problem gambling.

Andy Burnham: That is a good point, although from my days many years ago as an adviser to this Department, I seem to recall that some public money was involved in the creation of what is now called the O2 arena. My hon. Friend is right to say that sport, leisure and culture can be a powerful catalyst for wider regeneration. There is evidence for that up and down the country, and I want to encourage exactly those public-private partnerships that he seems to be referring to.

Paul Rowen: The Secretary of State has made the right decision today about super-casinos, but I must pick him up on what he said about compensation. The Government have cancelled a competition that the city of Manchester thought that it had won. Surely he ought to accept that Manchester should be compensated for the costs that it incurred.

Malcolm Moss: It's called gambling.

Andy Burnham: I welcome the welcome for the decision expressed by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), although I shall resist the temptation to respond to the sedentary comment from the Opposition Benches. However, I repeat that an ad hoc group is looking at all the issues that the decision raises, and I hope that it can conclude its work swiftly.

Julie Kirkbride: Following the Secretary of State's non-answer to the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), does he accept that another major flaw of the Gambling Act 2005 was the requirement to remove gaming machines with a 2 stake from bingo halls, adult gaming centres and seaside arcades? That has caused a catastrophic fall in business on such premises, and will he do something about it?

Andy Burnham: I understand that the same issues were raised in an Adjournment debate last week, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State responded. He is in discussions with the industry about the questions that have been raised, but we will keep all such matters under review.

Lynda Waltho: My right hon. Friend said that his instinct was to proceed with caution at all times and that he would take into consideration measures to protect young and vulnerable people. Will he confirm that admittance to casinos will be limited to people aged 21 and over, and will he expand a little further on his instincts in this area?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. The Act provides that 18 is the minimum age for entry to a casino, but my instinct is that 21 would be the right age. However, that is not a firm view and I am willing to listen to the views expressed by hon. Members of all parties before reaching a firm view. I have looked at the international evidence, though, and it seems that 21 is the age at which people around the world are admitted into casinos. I shall be interested to find out whether there is an appetite in the House for adopting a similar provision here.

Malcolm Moss: Setting aside the illogicality of dishing up what I calculate to be more than half a billion pounds as a sop to Manchester and Blackpool, when the Secretary of State looks at the figures promised for Blackpool, will he not see that two thirds of that 300 million has been committed already by other Departments?

Andy Burnham: I think that people in Blackpool will be interested in what the hon. Gentleman has said. At the beginning of my statement, I said that we had listened carefully to the views expressed in this House and another place. It has been impossible not to be aware of the strength of feeling about Blackpool, and it is clear that people want a sustainable regeneration package for the area. That package will draw on a range of sources, and I set out a moment ago the further support that may be available from my Department. Taken together, that represents a substantial investment in improving Blackpool.

Kevan Jones: I spent many hours on the Bill that became the Gambling Act 2005, when the Government's policy often seemed to change not every day, but every hour. My right hon. Friend's announcement today has made me wonder whether all that effort was worth itand, frankly, I do not think that it was. However, may I urge him to meet representatives of the British Casino Association before he introduces any more restrictions on casinos' operations? The 1968 Act has been criticised, but this country's casino industry has been largely well run and free of crime. Does he agree that the real problem is internet gambling?

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right to say that casinos are, on the whole, well run and crime-free. Long may that remain the case. He says that the time has been wasted, but I do not think that he should conclude that. The Gambling Act 2005 is a much stronger framework for the consideration of such matters. The House used to have no control over the extension of the number of casinos; the Act, as well as introducing tougher new measures, gave us the ability to do so. I will meet the British Casino Association before considering any further restrictions in that area.

Philip Davies: The Secretary of State has repeated his noble aim of requiring casinos, like bookmakers, to have policies to identify problem gamblers. I used to be a bookmaker, and I can say in all honesty that I never had any understanding of the detail of my customers' bank accounts, and so never knew whether they were betting more than they could afford to lose. Can he share his experience and tell us how operators are supposed to identify problem gamblers? Would that not put staffoften young or low-paid peoplein the difficult circumstance of having to tell people that they cannot place a bet because they have a problem?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman's experience is far more extensive than mine, and I will listen carefully to him on such matters. I hope that operators would work with the organisation chaired by his hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to develop good policies enabling them to identify problem gamblers. I suspect that most people who work in betting shops, casinos and similar places know their regular visitors and whether they have a potential problem needing further help and support. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a good and fair point. That is exactly why the trust needs more resource: to help improve the quality of the policies that will be developed.

David Chaytor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on putting the final nail in the coffin of the ridiculous and dangerous super-casino concept, and on recognising that investment in the creative industries, information technology, sustainable construction, skills and higher education represents the best future for young people in the Greater Manchester sub-region. Will he tell us more about his approach to gambling addiction and, particularly in view of the Australian experience, about how he will monitor any increase in gambling addiction as a result of the commission of 16 new casinos?

Andy Burnham: The main mechanism is the Gambling Commission's prevalence study. As I mentioned earlier, we want it to focus particularly on online gambling. That is how we will measure. We will keep the matter under review at all times. I welcome my hon. Friend's welcome for the decision that we announced today, and I agree that there is the potential to do something with the site available in east Manchester that is far more innovative and brings longer-lasting benefits to the north-west economy for many years to come.

David Burrowes: Does the Government's alleged gambling policy recognise the link between alcohol and drugs and problem gambling? If so, is the Secretary of State concerned about the lack of screening of problem gamblers in alcohol and drug treatment centres in the probation and prison services, and will he make representations to those presenting the alcohol and drugs strategy that problem gambling should be included?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The Responsibility in Gambling Trust could look at that issue too, so I will consider it further. It is a good point.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Secretary of State give a more convincing reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and others about the plight of the seaside holiday resorts with amusement arcades, which have been badly hit by the consequences of the Gambling Act? Such resorts are in great competition with overseas holidays. The matter is urgent and serious, and it deserves a better response than his reply that he was keeping it under review. As he is in a mood of contrition, will he agree that mistakes have been made and that they must be corrected?

Andy Burnham: No, we do not accept that. As I said earlier, we pay close attention to the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised, which are important to many hon. Members. Of the casinos authorised today, only a small number are in seaside resorts, so it is not in seaside resorts that the order's impact will mainly be felt, but he makes an important point. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is in regular discussion with representatives of the arcade industry, and we will continue to keep the matter under close review.

Robert Goodwill: I warmly thank the Government for dithering on the issue, because during all the dithering, Conservative-controlled Scarborough borough council has taken decisive action and has successfully persuaded Merlin Entertainments to build the new Legoland on the site for which the casino was in pole position. However, we will have a casino somewhere. In how many of the 16 cases will the opening of a new casino result in the closure of an existing casino that is unable to compete on equal terms?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated very well the point that I sought to make in my statement: these are matters for local decision making. The new Legoland development sounds very enticing. It will be for his local council to decide where, how and if it uses the authority that we seek to give it through the order. However, let me make it clear once again that the decisions are local at all times. I do not seek to interfere further in them, although I should say that the process by which licences are awarded must follow the guidelines that accompany the order laid down today.

Anne Milton: The Secretary of State's statement will be warmly welcomed by many, including myself and organisations such as the Evangelical Alliance, which has campaigned long and hard against regional casinos. However, the Government's unbelievable dithering on the issue will have cost the people of Manchester and Blackpool dearly. I am still not clear on why the Secretary of State changed his mind. Was it because he believes, as I do, that the so-called economic benefits are far outweighed by the social and economic costs?

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's welcome for the statement. Let me say again that it is less than a year since the Lords rejected the original order. It surely was right and proper to have a period of reflection before bringing any new order before the House. Indeed, if I remember correctly, lots of newspapers called for a period of reflection at the time. We have provided precisely that. It was right to consult local councils, and to give them time after local elections to decide whether they wished to proceed. All of that took until the back end of last year; it was only at the end of last year that we were able to get confirmation from all 16. Having held a consultative process in Government, we are coming forward with the order today, so I reject the hon. Lady's accusation that the process has been subject to delay and dither.

Henry Bellingham: Further to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), does the Secretary of State really understand the grave crisis facing the amusement arcade industry? There are amusement arcades in King's Lynn and Hunstanton that are losing customers by the day. Surely he can now reverse the damaging changes to the 50 jackpot machines. That would go some way towards solving the problem.

Andy Burnham: I understand that the British Amusement Catering Trade Association, the representative body, has made a series of requests to the Department, which are being considered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. He informs me that he will write to those concerned and respond to the requests by the end of the week. Again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are not insensitive to the important issues facing seaside towns. The Department will come forward soon with a serious, substantial initiative to get further investment for seaside towns, so that we protect their heritage and improve their facilities.

BILL PRESENTED

Copyright in Sound Recordings and Performers' Rights (Term Extension)

Pete Wishart, supported by Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Mark Field, Sandra Gidley, John Robertson, Rosemary McKenna, Adam Price, Mr. Greg Knight, John Hemming, Stewart Hosie, Kelvin Hopkins and Janet Anderson, presented a Bill to extend the duration of copyright in sound recordings and of performers' rights; and for connected purposes.: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March, and to be printed. [Bill 78].

Small Print

4.29 pm

Nick Palmer: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make requirements regarding the minimum size of print in certain documents, including those relating to advertising and contracts; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill's objective is simple: it is not to impose any additional regulations on the content of terms and conditions in advertisements or contracts, but to ensure that customers are reasonably able to read what they say. It is easy to say Let the buyer beware, but if the buyer cannot read the contract, how is he or she supposed to beware?
	I shall give an example that happened to me personally just last week. It is not a particularly severe example compared with some of the others that I shall cite, but it illustrates the point. People who make an online purchase, as I did last week, may be offered a voucher if they make another purchase from the same firmin this case, Expedia. If they click on that offer, they find that they have signed up to pay 8 a month for ever, until they cancel it, for a package of discount vouchers that they will get in the future. The website does not spell out what the vouchers are or their value. More to the point, the deal is in small print and people have to look for it to see that that is what they are signing up for.
	I noticed the offer because a constituent raised the matter with me a few weeks ago, after he had ordered some flowers online. He accepted the offer and, as a result, a couple of months later he noticed he had been paying 8 a month to a company that he had never heard of. He inquired why and found out that he had been fooled by the small print.
	Much more serious examples have come up in my discussions with non-governmental organisations, in relation to matters such as the redemption payment to be made when a mortgage is redeemed, which may be much more substantial than the mortgage holder expects. In a lease, the fine print relating to rental arrangements governs when the deposit is to be returned. Often the deposit is never seen again because of something deep down in the contract, especially if a person is a relatively vulnerable renter who is not used to the formalities of legal contracts and who has difficulty burrowing into small print deep in the contract. In the case of insurance policies, insurance companies are happy to take people's money no matter how old they are, but when policyholders come to claim, they find that in the small print there is an exclusion based on their age.
	The Bill has widespread support. The phrase in the small print has become a standard metaphor for evasive and devious modification of what appears to be on offer. I am grateful for the help of the Royal National Institute of the Blind and the Plain English Campaign in preparing the Bill. I welcome the support of Age Concern, Help the Aged and the Trading Standards Institute, which was helpfully brought in by my co-sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell).
	I thank the other co-sponsors presentmy hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), and the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer). If I have missed anyone, I apologise. I am grateful for the all-party support and for the support of my local newspaper, the  Nottingham Evening Post.
	In fairness, amid the orgy of congratulation, I have had a critical note from the Advertising Standards Authority, which has reservations about the Bill and does not believe there is a problem. It says that it already has the power to regulate the area adequately. With all due respect to the Advertising Standards Authority, that does not seem in practice to prevent widespread use of small print with the objective of obscuring unwelcome terms and conditions.
	As we all know, ten-minute Bills tend to have a sad fate in the eternal grey waiting room of the pending section of the Order Paper, but I am glad to say that in this case a Minister from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has agreed to take the matter up, and I will meet him next week to see whether the issue can be addressed as part of the new EU directive on consumer protection. There might be those who have their doubts about the EU but I hope that on this issue at least we are of one mind in saying that the consumer deserves protection against manipulation in the small print. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Graham Allen, Norman Baker, Michael Jabez Foster, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, John Hemming, Susan Kramer, Dr. Julian Lewis, Shona McIsaac and Mr. Paul Truswell.

Small Print

Dr. Nick Palmer accordingly presented a Bill to make requirements regarding the minimum size of print in certain documents, including those relating to advertising and contracts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 March, and to be printed [Bill 76].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (LISBON TREATY) (No. 6)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 January],
	That the Order of 28(th) January be further amended as follows: in the Table, in the entry for Allotted Day 7, in the third column:
	(a) for '4frac12; hours' substitute '3 hours', and
	(b) for '1frac12; hours' substitute '3 hours'. [Ms Diana R. Johnson.]
	 Question agreed to.

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the Chair reconsider the decision not to select the Liberal Democrat amendment for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU? That is the question that goes to the heart of the debate before the House. That is the debate that people want to hear. We are being gagged, Sir.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but having made it he must not go on and start debating the matter. The selection of amendments is made by Mr. Speaker, and is not open for questioning in the House. Hon. Members will have every opportunity to discuss these matters when we embark[Hon. Members: When?] Order. During the course of the debate.

Nicholas Clegg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I share the dismay of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). What guidance can you give me on how we can secureif not today, at some point during the remaining stages of the Billthe opportunity to debate the issue that many Members want debated and many members of the public want debated: our future membership of the EU?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made the situation quite clear to hon. Members. I am sorry if they do not accept it

William Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, there can be no further point of order. We must now get on with the debate.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with the point of order.

Simon Hughes: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is a separate point of order, I am prepared to take it.

Simon Hughes: I have raised procedural questions about the Bill with Mr. Speaker and other occupants of the Chair. I have asked for guidance from Officers of the House on the drafting of amendments that will be selectablegenerally, on the Bill, not just on this issue. I have been told that we must see the Clerks. My colleagues have been to see the Clerks and have taken advice from them. They have submitted amendments that the Clerks have told them are in order. Please will you tell me and those other colleagues who have made points of order on the Bill what more we have to do to have a point of order accepted that allows an amendment to be debated in the House on an issue that a quarter of the British people represented here want to be debated and many people regularly tell us ought to be debated? What else do we have to do, because we have followed the rules that we have been given?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: All the hon. Gentleman has done is to confirm how carefully this matter has been studied by everybody concerned. Following that careful study, Mr. Speaker has made his selection of amendments for today; that must be the end of it for today.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are simply wasting time. I am not prepared to take any more points of order on the selection of amendments for today.

William Cash: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, relating to the scope of the Bill. It is clear that the Bill is making
	provision in connection with the Treaty of Lisbon Amending the Treaty on European Union.
	In that context, I simply say that the treaty has been described by the European Scrutiny Committee, on which I sit, as substantially equivalent to the original constitution. The Liberal Democrats have broken their promises.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of this House and knows that we are not at this point in time discussing the Bill. We are discussing the motion before the House. I suggest that we now start on that.

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Julia Goldsworthy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Point of orderMr. Ed Davey.

Edward Davey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your granting me this point of order. This is an outrage to the House [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The outrage to the House is in danger of being the hon. Gentleman's attitude to the Chair [Interruption.] Order. He has made his point. I have told him already how matters stand. There will be opportunities to discuss these matters[Hon. Members: When?] There will be opportunities to discuss these matters at a different time.
	If the hon. Gentleman persists in arguing with Mr. Speaker's selection for amendments today, I shall be extremely annoyed. He has made his point; everybody has understood it. It is firmly on the record. Now I must insist that we get on with the debate. I call Mr. Jim Murphy.

Edward Davey: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order [ Interruption .] Order. I am afraid that I am now going to have to warn the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about his conduct. If he persists, stronger measures will have to be taken. Having made his point, he really is now abusing his position.

Edward Davey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We need to know when we can debate this issue. It is a debate that the British people want. It is unfair not to allow it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman fails to appreciate that that is not something that I can deal with at this point in time.

Edward Davey: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.  [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand that I am not prepared to allow this matter to be pursued any further. As I have said, he has made his point firmly this afternoon. It is on the record in the way he sought to make it. If he wishes to pursue it after this afternoon, he can explore other ways of doing things. I cannot do anything other than abide by the selection for this afternoon's business, which Mr. Speaker has made in accordance with the rules of the House. As I have already explained, it is not open to being questioned in the way the hon. Gentleman is seeking to. I call Mr. Jim Murphy.

Edward Davey: rose

Julia Goldsworthy: rose

Norman Baker: rose

Jim Murphy: Mr. Deputy Speaker [Interruption.]

Edward Davey: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I warn the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that unless he obeys the authority of the Chair, I shall have no alternative but to order him to withdraw from the House. That means that the hon. Gentleman will have to leave the precincts of the Palace of Westminster and that he will not be able to vote for the rest of the day.

Edward Davey: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have made the position entirely clear to the hon. Gentleman. I repeat to him that he has had every opportunity to make the point that he sought to make, and I think that we should now move on to the debate.

Edward Davey: With due respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not believe that we have been given our chance

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had enough. I would be grateful if the Minister got to his feet to start the debate.

Jim Murphy: rose

Edward Davey: rose
	 The hon. Member, having conducted himself in a grossly disorderly manner, was ordered by Mr. Deputy Speaker , pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Disorderly conduct), to withdraw immediately from the House during the remainder of this day's sitting, and he withdrew accordingly.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that that must be the end of it.

Treaty of Lisbon (No. 7)

[7th Allotted Day]

Jim Murphy: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision-making.
	I am happy to introduce the seventh in our series of themed debates on the content of the Lisbon treaty [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

David Howarth: I beg to move Standing Order No. 29.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that Mr. Jim Murphy gets on with the debate.

Jim Murphy: Today we are debating the institutional reforms introduced by the Lisbon treaty. These fall into two categories: first, the reforms to the existing EU institutions [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now going to continue with this afternoon's debate in the way that we should [ Interruption. ] Order. Hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies must understand that the order of this House is every bit as important as the kind of matters that they are seeking to raise. It is crucial to the good order of this House that they respect the occupant of this Chair. I really do think that the Members in question have gone far enough today to make the points that they wish to make. If they want to continue, there are other ways of doing it[Hon. Members: How?] There are other ways of doing what they seek to do. I call Mr. Jim Murphy.

Jim Murphy: As I was saying, we are debating the institutional reforms introduced by the Lisbon treaty. Those fall into two categories: first, reforms to the existing EU institutions to allow them to function more effectively

John Redwood: rose

Jim Murphy: And secondly, reforms to the way in which the EU takes decisions and the accountability for those decisionsin particular, to national Parliaments.

John Redwood: rose

Jim Murphy: I just wished to make that point so that I can get further than I did on the last occasion before giving way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).

John Redwood: Does the Minister agree that it is a discourtesy to him and the House that the Liberal Democrats, after synthetic anger about their broken promise, should now have almost entirely removed themselves from the Chamber when those most important issues, in which they say that they are interested, are up for debate? We should now ask: where are they?

Jim Murphy: That is not an issue for the Government or for any individual Minister. All that I would say in passing is that on the issue of Europe, the Liberal Democrats, in principle, see the benefits of our continued membership and continued involvement in the European Union and support the reforms in the treaty. As to the conduct of individual Members of Parliament, that is an issue for the Speaker or the occupant of the Chair, not for Government Ministers.

Ian Davidson: Has the Minister noticed that we never had this sort of difficulty when my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, South (Mr. Alexander) was the Europe Minister?

Jim Murphy: We did not have this sort of difficulty under any of the other eight Europe Ministers who have served during the past 10 years, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who are sitting in front of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson). I do not know whether it is down to me or not, but I will try to make some progress.

Bob Spink: I apologise to the House, but I would like to take us back to the debate in question. On 20 February, when I asked the Minister to set out the details of the role of the president of the European Council, he said that discussions on these issues have not yet started. How can we be debating the effectiveness of EU institutions when we do not even know what the role of the president will be?

Jim Murphy: The discussion today has not yet started. Perhaps when we have started a discussion of any substance, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and we can discuss his specific question.

Michael Connarty: I hoped to avoid the situation where I am asking the Minister questions after he speaks about something he should have mentioned. He mentioned the role of national Parliaments. Will he tell us today how our national Parliament will adopt procedures, and which specific procedures it will adopt to allow us to have a say on the subsidiarity checkthe orange and yellow cards?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend has paid close attention to these matters for a period of months. It would be wrong for me to announce at the Dispatch Box today how we intend to organise Parliament to enable what he asks about to happen. That is a matter for continuing dialogue with members of the European Scrutiny Committeeof which my hon. Friend is the Chairand perhaps even, in time, members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and of the Select Committee on the European Union in the other place. It is important that the Government do not announce, without consultation, the most effective way in which improvements to the involvement of national Parliaments will come into effect in the UK arrangements.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sure that the Minister does not always produce such a dramatic effect in the Chamber. Can he tell me why there is not some clear demonstration of the sort of machinery that Parliament will have to look at? I have tabled a little amendment to clause 8, which I shall certainly make a scene about when the time comesI hope that lots of people will walk out then. Frankly, unless we have a clear idea of the machinery we have in this House for scrutinising the directives and regulations that flow out of Brussels, it is rather pointless having the sort of discussion he suggests. We are not asking him to take decisions, but simply to tell us what it is that we have to look at.

Jim Murphy: There are a range of options to look at with regard to the way in which we organise matters. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, we have not come to a view on the best way to involve Select Committees, the Chamber and the Members of the other place, or on the exact procedures to follow. It is for the House to develop its own rules in that regard. It is important to say, however, that we will undertake to ensure that those discussions take place and that decisions are put in place in time for ratification. It is crucial that the procedures are in place in time for the ratification across the 27 member states, and the commencement of the treaty

Several hon. Members: rose

Jim Murphy: I will give way to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).

Angus Robertson: The Minister has indicated that he will listen to the various interest groups, Members of this House and Members of the House of Lords with regard to the working of the mechanism. He will appreciate, however, that more than half of the powers currently enacted by the European Union relate to devolved matters. Does he agree that the mechanism that operates in this place will take due consideration of the views of devolved legislatures and Governments in the United Kingdom?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman and I often cross swords, but he makes a fair point that we have to design our system to ensure that there is an effective way in which to gather views and reach a conclusion. However, I hope that he accepts that making a decision will ultimately be a matter for this place. I agree that it is important to construct a meaningful dialogue.

Gisela Stuart: I appreciate that my hon. Friend said that the mechanisms must be examined, especially in consultation with Select Committees. However, has he decided whether he wants the scrutiny to be similar to that of Select Committees, which scrutinise the Executive's actions and may reach a different policy view from Government, or whether he wants the Committees to police subsidiarity and proportionality? Those are distinct functions, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend has already formed a view.

Jim Murphy: We have not yet formed a firm view and we need to discuss such issues with the relevant Select Committees because it is important to get it right. I know that my hon. Friend has strong views on those matters and I look forward to the opportunity of discussing with her and other hon. Members from all parties the best way in which to implement the procedures.

Angela Browning: rose

Jim Murphy: I have not yet got past page 1 of my introductory comments, but I will give way to the hon. Lady and then try to make progress.

Angela Browning: Will the Minister confirm that we can debate as much as we like any regulation that has been subject to qualified majority voting in Brussels and then comes to the House, but that we do not have the power to change it?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Lady knows that I have served on European Standing Committees A, B and C and examined such matters in great detail. Before I became Minister for Europe, my view wasand remainsthat we must find more effective ways in which to scrutinise European legislation. The way in which we structure matters is therefore an issue for the House and we can adjust our own rules.

Robert Goodwill: rose

Jim Murphy: I shall make some progress and then, of course, give way to hon. Members who want to intervene.
	I will set out the main changes under each category shortly. However, I first want to remind the House that institutional reform of the EU is not new. Indeed, it is one of the few constants of almost every EU treaty. The European Economic Community started in 1957 with an institutional framework designed to meet the needs of a club of six member states. It had a Commission, a rotating presidency, Community competences and a legal personality. However, at each stage of development, faced with fresh challenges, member states have adapted the EU's institutions and decision making to address those new challenges. There has therefore been continuing reform of the EU's institutions and decision making.
	In the 1980s, faced with economic underperformance and the challenge of making a reality of the single market, the member states, with this country in the lead, introduced a widespread extension of qualified majority voting. In its effects, that was perhaps the most radical change to European decision making. However, as the Government of Baroness Thatcher recognised at the time, those major moves to QMV were in the UK's national interest. Without that, the single market could not have been created. As Baroness Thatcher said in a speech in the other place in 1993:
	we would never have got the single market without an extension... of majority voting... we wanted a single market and we had, in fact, to have some majority voting.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 June 1993; Vol. 546, c. 562.]
	Foreign and security policy, co-operation in justice and home affairs and the process of creating the euro was part of the reform that the Maastricht treaty enabled. That treaty introduced the concept of co-decision with the European Parliament and moved important policy areas to QMV, including education, public health, transport safety, development co-operation and consumer protection.
	Some, including Baroness Thatcher, felt that the Maastricht treaty went even further than the Single European Act in transferring decision-making powers to European level. Maastricht, according to Baroness Thatcher, is much, much wider than the Single European Act.

Graham Stuart: Do the Government believe that parliamentary sovereignty persists? Has it been temporarily handed to European institutions and can it brought back by an Act of Parliament, or has it been transferred permanently?

Jim Murphy: The fact is that the supremacy of European law was established before the UK joined the European Community. It was confirmed in case law in

Hon. Members: 1963.

William Cash: 1964.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is better informed than the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart)the supremacy of European law was confirmed in a 1964 case. That has been the case since before the United Kingdom joined the European Community. In respect of the extension of qualified majority voting, that was also enabled by the treaty of Rome in 1957. Every subsequent European amending treaty since has extended qualified majority voting, which is important to recognise.

Ian Taylor: Is the Minister not indicating that the best way of undermining the sovereignty of Parliament is to have a referendum, which is designed to bypass Parliament? However, let me leave that aside. The key point that Baroness Thatcher made in the House when she was Prime Minister in 1989 was that qualified majority voting is an advantage to the United Kingdom, which rarely gets outvoted, in that it enables this country to ensure that the European Union can pass legislation that bypasses the protectionist instincts of any one country. Is that not the reason that this country has always found qualified majority voting an advantage rather than a disadvantage?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his analysis of qualified majority voting and of why this Government and previous Conservative Governments have extended it in the careful way that we have. It has ensured that, where protectionist tendencies exist, no one country can block economic reforms, which are so important to the United Kingdom.

John Redwood: The Minister is right that there has been a progressive surrender of powers and a progressive increase in qualified majority voting, but to ensure that the record is accurate, will he confirm that qualified majority voting has been granted in 10 times as many areas since 1997 as were granted by Baroness Thatcher?

Jim Murphy: The fact was that[Hon. Members: Yes.] No, I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of Europe and, looking at the figures, I disagree with his analysis of qualified majority voting. The Single European Act made 12 such moves and the Maastricht treaty, which he supported, made 32 moves. There were 26 moves under the Amsterdam treaty and 32 under the Nice treaty, while the Lisbon treaty, as we have all discussed, makes 51 extensions.

Doug Henderson: Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is not a question of giving up sovereignty, but a question of sharing it where issues such as the environment and energy have to be dealt with in common?

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the sharing of that sovereignty. The fact is that Parliament remains sovereign. Parliament is free to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, but we would have to leave the European Union as a consequence. That is not an agenda that we on the Government Benches are in any way interested in.

William Cash: On the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) raised, and to which the Minister has just begun to give an answer, does he agree that it is well established in case law of the House of Lords that it is possible for the United Kingdom to make provisions that contradict provisions of the 1972 Act and all the Community obligations that flow from it, providing that such legislation is express, consistent and clearly intended to achieve that objective? In those circumstances, courts of the United Kingdom will give effect to the latest Act that complies with those criteria. Does the Minister agree with that?

Jim Murphy: Where I agree is that the European Communities Act 1972 would be the way to seek the removal, as it were, of the type of proposals in the European Union (Amendment) Bill, which will come before us this evening. Notwithstanding what the hon. Gentleman has said, repealing the 1972 Act would be an invitation by Parliament to remove the United Kingdom from membership of the European Union.

Robert Goodwill: I speak as someone who used to head up the European Parliament side in conciliation negotiations. On the effectiveness of the QMV system, does the Minister not agree that the British Government would be better represented in the Council were they to be represented by Ministers, rather than by civil servants? In most cases, when I was there, there was one Minister from the presidency and the rest of those involved were civil servants.

Jim Murphy: The make-up of these Committees, in regard to the balance between Ministers and civil servants, is an important established arrangement governing the way in which Governments act. Governments of both parties have acted in a way whereby, at a particular time, it is appropriate for officials to discuss and examine the legal basis of the texts involved, and, at an appropriate time, Ministers become involved. That is the correct way of organising the business.

Bernard Jenkin: Does the Minister accept that, for example, the French Conseil d'Etat regularly maintains a conflict between French administrative law and European Community law, and that that is not greeted as an invitation to leave the European Union? On the contrary, it becomes a political matter to be resolved. Were the United Kingdom expressly to create a non-conformity in terms of United Kingdom law with EC law, that would be a matter to be resolved politically, and not necessarily an invitation to leave the European Union.

Jim Murphy: The fact is that, if we were to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, it would be an invitation to leave the European Union. The hon. Gentleman has me at a slight disadvantage, in that I am not an expert on French legal and constitutional arrangements. Perhaps, however, I shall have to brush up on them as we progress through our proceedings, the second half of which we have reached today.
	After 2003, following the collapse of communism and the enlargement involving the central and eastern European countries, the EU reformed its institutional and voting systems. Today, a Europe of 27 countrieswith more to comefaces the challenges of globalisation, defending and extending free and fair trade, climate change, energy security, migration and terrorism. The EU has the potential to deliver for our citizens on these challenges but, to do so, it needs strong, effective and accountable institutions. The Lisbon treaty introduces reforms to help to achieve that. As the Law Society guide to the Lisbon treaty says:
	Institutional change is the key driver behind the Treaty of Lisbon. The need for transparency, better democratic accountability and enhanced judicial scrutiny has led to some important improvements in the EU's make-up.
	I would like to set out the reforms that the treaty actually makesthe facts, rather than the fictions that have been peddled.
	There are two sets of reforms. The first involves those that will allow the existing EU institutions to function more effectively and with more accountability to the member states. The new full-time president of the European Council replaces the current system in which presidency of the European Council rotates every 26 weeks. The European Council is the body through which the leaders of member states steer the political direction of the EU, and it is in our national interest to ensure greater continuity.
	We have heard allegations from the Opposition that this will mean the creation, over time, of a US-style President. That is a ludicrous assertion. The President of the US is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. All Executive functions are vested in himor perhaps, shortly, her. The President appoints judges, makes treaties and can veto legislation. The president of the European Council, on the other hand, will do none of those things. He or she will have no legislative or Executive functions.

Kelvin Hopkins: As so often happens with European issues, my hon. Friend is talking about the changes as though they were the end of the story. The direction of travel is towards stronger and stronger central institutions and a stronger president who will perhaps, in time, become like the American President. That is something with which we would profoundly disagree.

Jim Murphy: I respect my hon. Friend's point of view, although we do not agree. The changes will ensure that the European Union can be much more effective. I do not know whether my hon. Friend shares our ambition to deliver on behalf of all our constituents an organisation that could be a great force for good across the globe. Such an organisation should not have within its architecture the inbuilt instability of a change of leadership every 26 months. As I have previously reflected, that is no way to run a bowling club or a golf club in any of our constituencies and it is certainly no way to set out the rules of the largest rules-based market in human history.

Andrew MacKinlay: I want to raise a relatively small matter that has not yet been addressed. Each member state that hosts the presidency currently bankrolls it for the six-month period, which must be extraordinarily expensive. How will the costs now be met not just for the job of the president, but for the additional functions whose costs were hitherto picked up by the host national state?

Jim Murphy: As we end the process of diplomatic musical chairs and travelling around the 27 European capitals, the expectation is that rationalisation will bring an end to what I think was an indefensible process and lead to some savings. As to how it is then funded, it would no longer be the responsibility of the rotating presidency to pick up that bill, but of Europe as a whole.
	Still on the first group of reforms, the treaty reduces the size of the European Commission with the aim of ensuring that it can work more effectively as the EU enlarges.

Michael Connarty: I wanted to raise this matter as I was not sure whether the Minister was going to expand on the point. One part of the structure is for vice-presidencies during the six-month period, but has any thought been given to that role? There is certainly a sense of engagement in the present systemthough I would also have to say that there are inefficiencies when the individual countries take up their six-month dutiesbut the promise made in the Convention, and after, was that countries would still be engaged in some sort of rotating vice-presidential role. Will the Minister elaborate further on that?

Jim Murphy: Time does not allow me to elaborate in much detail, apart from saying that the expectation was that rotating sectoral councils would continue under the auspices of the six-month rotating period. That might provide the opportunity that my hon. Friend alluded to, but, significantly, the office of president of the Council would no longer rotate.
	From 2014, the number of commissioners will be reduced so that two thirds of member states provide a commissioner at any one time, with every country taking equal turns. The members of the Commission will still, as now, be decided by national Governments, acting on qualified majority voting, and by the European Parliament. The treaty also reduces the size of the European Parliament, with the number of MEPs capped at 751down from the current 785.
	The second group of reforms largely relates to better decision making and accountability.

Robert Goodwill: The Minister makes no mention of the Economic and Social Committee or the Committee of the Regions, which are both very expensive and, in my opinion, superfluous. Will the Minister tell me what those two bodies bring to the picnic and can he defend their continuation?

Jim Murphy: I believe that the Committee of the Regions is important, because it provides a significant opportunity for those who do not live with or practise the politics of civic society in the capital cities of sovereign member states to become involved in consultations and offer their views. It is an important dynamic, showing the multi-layered nature of the EU, and I believe that removing it would be a weakness.

William Cash: rose

Jim Murphy: Let me make some progress and I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
	The second group of changes relates to better decision making and accountability. This group of reforms alters the way in which the EU takes decisions and the means of accountability for them. It provides new powers for national Parliaments; more effective decision making where it is in the UK's interests; and explicitly sets out the EU's competencesand where those competences endfor the first time.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Has the Minister seen the authoritative report published this week about the operation of the artist's resale right directive? The Government voted against it, but it was passed by a majority vote. The Government opposed it on the grounds that it would damage the British art market, which is much the biggest in Europe. The report confirms that that damage has occurred. Does the Minister think it wise to extend majority voting to a further 51 areas? Will that not ensure that in future the views and priorities of this Government and this Parliament will be overridden, to the detriment of British interests?

Jim Murphy: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's assertion. The areas in which we have agreed to the extension of qualified majority voting are those in which we want quicker decision making, and want to remove the power of any one member state to block that decision making.

William Cash: Two groups of amendments to the European Union (Amendment) Bill have been tabled in my name. Will the Minister be good enough to explain exactly what would be left to the United Kingdom in terms of sovereignty, given that, as he well knows, the notions of shared competence and exclusive competence mean that we would no longer be able to legislate in certain areas? On what does he believe we would still be able to legislate, comprehensively?

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has been uncharacteristically unfair on himself. He has, in fact, tabled 67 amendments to the Bill.
	As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the setting out of competences does not change the position in any legal sense; it simply clarifies it. Article 1(6) of the Lisbon treatyarticle 5.2 on page 6 of the consolidated treatystates that
	the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein. Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.

William Cash: rose

Jim Murphy: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will tell him what is left. The United Kingdom Government set this out in great detail. It has been made very clear that on issues of defence and international policy, social security, justice and home affairsall the big national issues in relation to which it makes sense for national Parliaments and national Governments to act in unanimitythey reserve that right.

Denis MacShane: Can the Minister confirm that 99 per cent. of European Union national income stays in the hands of member states, and that of the 1 per cent. that goes to Brussels, 85 per cent. is sent back to them for disbursement? Moreover, according to the House of Commons Library, fewer than 10 per cent. of the laws that we pass here emanate from Europe and more than 90 per cent. are our laws, made in this House.

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend is right, as usual.

Andrew MacKinlay: He was sacked as Minister for Europe.

Jim Murphy: I cannot see anyone leading a walk-out as a result of that intervention.

Gisela Stuart: Does the Minister agree that there is one area in which we should have moved to qualified majority voting, but have not done so? I refer to the vote that determines the seat of the European Parliament. I think that we should have removed the French veto and moved to qualified majority voting, and that the European Parliament should have sat only in Brussels.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend has argued that case for some time. It is an established arrangement for the European Parliament to sit in Strasbourg for one week, although I am sure that that arrangement can and will be examined as part of the continuing reform of the European Parliament.

Rob Marris: Will the Minister give us an indicationperhaps later in the debate, if not nowof how frequently the United Kingdom is on the losing side of a QMV vote, and how frequently we are on the winning side? I suspect that we are on the winning side on the overwhelming majority of occasions, and that the United Kingdom is able to persuade other European Union members to agree with us on what we think is right for this country. There is give and take in all negotiations. We need to assess how often we lose and how often we win under QMV to gain some sense of proportion, and to determine whether QMV is worth engaging in.

Jim Murphy: It is absolutely clear that in the vast majority of casesI will happily put what is available on the public record and into the public domainthe UK is effective in achieving a blocking minority where we seek to do so, and that will be protected even further under the new arrangements that will be put in place by 2017 and the double majority voting changes.

James Clappison: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: After I have given way to the hon. Gentleman, it might be helpful if I make a little progress.

James Clappison: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has just said that he is happy with all the concessions made on qualified majority voting, but let us take just one example, although an important one: the QMV that the treaty introduces for proposals made by the new high representative. When this matter first came before the intergovernmental conference, the Minister's predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Justice, opposed it, saying it was simply unacceptable. Why did the Government at that time find it to be simply unacceptable?

Jim Murphy: We made it absolutely clear that we wanted clarity and precision in the relationship between the high representative and the Commission more generally, and we achieved that.
	The Lisbon treaty gives national Parliaments a direct say in making European laws for the first time. Every national Parliament will receive proposals for new EU legislation directly. They may judge whether the proposal conforms to the principles of subsidiarity. If one third of national Parliaments object, the proposal will be sent back for review by the Commission. If a majority of national Parliaments oppose a Commission proposal, and national Governments or MEPs agree, it can be struck down.
	Each national Parliament gets two votes, so for the UK this House and another place will each have a yellow and orange card to play. As I suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, how that is exercised will be a matter for Parliament to decide. We will work with both Houses to ensure that an effective mechanism is in place to allow Parliament to exercise its new rights from the date of entry into force of the Lisbon treaty.

Mark Harper: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: I shall make a little progress, if I may.
	This is an opportunity, not any kind of threat. However, the original House of Commons ESC report on the IGC of 9 October 2007on which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk did sterling worksaid:
	We wish to emphasise that the proposals in the Reform Treaty raise a serious difficulty of a constitutional order in as much as they appear to impose, whether by accident or design, a legal duty on national parliaments 'to contribute actively to the good functioning of the Union' by taking part in various described activities.
	Although we did not share the ESC's view, we listened to the concerns raised and secured changes to the text to make it clear that national Parliaments have the right to contribute to the work of the Union but are not obliged to do so. We are sure that the text is now unambiguous and that there is no question of any obligation on national Parliaments. All member states and the EU institutions are clear that the final text confers rights on national Parliaments, but does not impose obligations.

William Cash: I do not think the Minister intended to do so, but he has slightly misconstruedso to speakwhat the ESC said in its follow-up report, where we made it crystal clear in the concluding provision that it would be intolerable for there to be any ambiguity in respect of any suggestion that an EU obligation should be imposed on our Parliament, and that that would, of course, be inconsistent with the whole of our constitutional arrangements. That is what the ESC said, and it is backed by the most learned opinionsby Queen's counsel and many others. I know that the Minister did not mean to mislead the House.

Jim Murphy: I did no such thing, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see if he checks  Hansard. I was quoting verbatim from the ESC report, which is publicly available.
	As I have said, although we did not share the concerns expressed, we nevertheless acted to secure changes to the text. The House of Lords EU Select Committee stated in its report of 1 November 2007 that while it accepted the reassurances that the treaty was not intended to impose obligations on national Parliaments,
	we considered it necessary to ensure that the phraseology was correct while the interests of national parliaments were appropriately presented in the text...We were accordingly pleased to have heard that the word 'shall' has been eliminated from the English text.

Patricia Hewitt: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the treaty protocol on the role of national Parliaments explicitly spells out that
	the way in which national Parliaments scrutinise their governments in relation to the activities of the European Union is a matter for the particular constitutional organisation and practice of each Member State?
	Of course that must be the case, and it is clearly recognised in the treaty. Will he confirm that?

Jim Murphy: My right hon. Friend is correct. She amplifies the point that I was making in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, who is Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)it is for national Parliaments to resolve the way in which they structure the new rights offered to them.

Michael Connarty: We went slightly off at a tangent on the question whether a Parliament could decide how it would scrutinise or not scrutinise its Government. The treaty ended up reading:
	National Parliaments contribute...to the good functioning of the Union.
	The word shall was taken out. Paragraph 16 of the European Scrutiny Committee's third report of Session 2007-08 suggested that the word may should have replaced the word shall. May I inform the Minister that at the conference of the Chairs of European Committees on 18 February, a representative of another Parliament said clearly that Parliaments shall contribute? When we questioned that, we were told, They must contribute. It says so in the treaty. Clearly the interpretation outside this House is that removing the word shall has not diminished the compulsion to contribute seen by others.

Jim Murphy: I believe that my hon. Friend was attending a COSAC meeting, where he has an opportunity to discuss these issues with his equivalentsthe Chairs of the Scrutiny Committees in the other 26 national Parliaments. The second Chambers of those national Parliaments are also involved in such meetings. It is clearwe are precise about thisthat we responded to concerns that he raised. He has been fair enough to observe that in another place.  [Interruption.] He has acknowledged from a sedentary position that he agrees with that. As to how we persuade other European Parliaments, as the treaty is ratified across the European Union it will be clear that other national Parliaments will have to adjust their rules and the way in which they operate. I would not seek to interfere in how another national Parliament organised its business.
	Hon. Members on both sides wish to make their contributions, so I shall now make some progress. The treaty extends qualified majority voting, and that will offer faster decision making where the UK wants to see more effective EU action. I cannot accept the view of some hon. Members that in respect of this new treaty alone there is no case for moves to QMV. I believe, the Government believe and the rest of the European Union believes that the case is a strong one.

James Clappison: I take it that the Minister is referring to the very important provisionI believe it is article 48that enables the European Council to move from unanimity to QMV in a wide area of decision making. The Government originally opposed that at the time of their 2003 White Paper, saying that it would undermine the role of national Parliaments. Why have they changed their mind?

Jim Murphy: In response to that fair point, may I say that there is clearly a triple lock on any of these changes? It is a triple lock of the European Parliament, the European Council and any national Parliament. Alone in the European Union, this Government have proposedthe provision is in clause 6 of the Billthat any move from unanimity to QMV would require the assent of this place and the other place before it was to happen. As far as I can ascertain, we are the only Government who have taken the opportunity to provide that additional protection and power to a national Parliament.

Mark Hendrick: If there is a move towards greater use of qualified majority voting, the introduction of double majority voting from 2014 will mean that the UK's share of votes in the Council will rise to 12 per cent., from 8 per cent., giving us that much more power.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend has great experience of these issues and he is absolutely correct. Our share in the Council of Ministers will go from 8 to 12 per cent. and our share of a blocking minority will go from 32 to 35 per cent.

Mark Harper: On the QMV point raised by the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is no longer in his place, could the Ministerwhen he has finished furnishing the House with the interesting data about the votes in which we were not outvotedput on record whether the Government calculate whether they could win a vote before deciding what position to take?

Jim Murphy: What an innovative idea! I cannot go further than putting on the record those votes in which we were outvoted. I can only assume that if we force an issue to a vote, we anticipate winning that vote. The two lists are probably one and the same thing.
	In terms of extensions to QMV

Ian Taylor: It was obvious in the last Conservative Government that good Ministers rarely had problems with voting, as they could dominate what happened in the Council of Ministers. Given that there are extra blocking minority powers now, I am sure that even Labour Ministers can keep up that record.

Jim Murphy: I was with the hon. Gentleman right up to his last few syllables. Thus far, in the vast majority of cases under Governments of both parties, effective Ministers supported by first class civil servants have enabled the UK to achieve its objectives. The institutions have been structured in a way that will strengthen the UK's hand in the future, not weaken it.

Michael Connarty: I wish to raise a technical point. QMV will be introduced for areas in which it is not used at the moment. One of them is the famous passerelle clause, which the Prime Minister has said will be dealt with on the Floor of the House. There are all the other opt-in areas, and I understand that there are 70 or 80 of them. When they are transposed into the new Community method under the treaty, they will be subject to QMV. Has the Minister given any further thought to the point that I made on Second Reading about the procedure for that? I am concerned that that should not be decided under the statutory instrument procedure, off the Floor of the House, because those issues are the business of this Chamber.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend talks with great authority on these issues. Alone in the EU, this Government have provided the protection enabled in clause 4 of the Bill which means that any moves from unanimity to QMV could be vetoed by the House. The exact way we configure that will be an issue for dialogue and the decisions that we need to have in place in time for the commencement of the treaty across the European Union.
	I wish to make some progress. Hon. Members will accept that I have taken a substantial number of interventions, and others wish to speak. In terms of the extensions to QMV, 20 of the changes offer faster decision making where the UK wants to see better systems in place, such as protecting British business ideas across Europe and decision making on energy.
	The UK has always insisted on maintaining ultimate national control in the key areas of social security, tax, foreign policy and defence, as I have already mentioned. The Lisbon treaty makes it clear that we have secured that for the UK. In the most sensitive areasjustice and home affairs, and social securitythe UK has the right either not to participate or to insist on unanimity. Many of the other QMV measures, such as those that concern rules about the eurozone, simply do not apply to us. In fact, 16 changes either do not apply to the UK or apply only if we choose to opt in. That leaves 15 purely procedural changes, such as the operating rules for the judicial appointments panel and how we appoint members to the EU's Economic and Social Committee. Overall, the impact of QMV under the reform treaty will be significantly less than under the Single European Act, for example.
	The treaty makes the system of majority voting more transparent and democratic. Under the new double majority voting system, which I have mentioned, a minimum of 55 per cent. of the member states15 of the 27 countriesrepresenting a minimum of 65 per cent. of the EU's population must vote in favour for European legislation to be passed.
	Opponents of the Lisbon treaty have claimed that the UK's blocking power in the Council of Ministers will be reduced by double majority voting. I have already made it clear that that will not be the case. Opponents of the treaty have pointed to research from the London School of Economics to bolster their argument. In fact, the claim is based on research by Professor Moshe Machover of the LSE, who has since made it clear that, in his view, the UK's relative position will actually improve substantially under the new voting system. It is important to put that on the record.
	The treaty will also improve transparency and defines the Union's competences for the first time, as I have mentioned. The categories of the competences simply reflect existing law. They provide greater clarity than before about what the EU can and cannot do. As the Law Society's guide to the Lisbon treaty says:
	There are five areas in which the UK and other EU countries have agreed that the EU alone may pass new laws. None of these is new to the Treaty of Lisbon.
	It is clearly in the UK's interest that the EU's powers and where it can and cannot act are set out explicitly, as they are. The Lisbon treaty expressly provides for the EU to have legal personality. Legal personality for the EC and the EU is not new. The European Community has concluded hundreds of international agreements covering all fields of Community activity since it gained legal personality.

William Cash: We had an exchange on this point this morning. Will the Minister be kind enough to tell me why he alleges that that legal personality is not new, when he must know that specific provisions demonstrate that it is? Admittedly, it is not new in respect of trade, but there is a range of other areas where it is. He must know that; surely he can concede that point.

Jim Murphy: I do not know whether I concede it, but I certainly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on ensuring we had an opportunity to discuss these issues in relation to the matter of support for Kosovo in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall this morning, when he managed to make an argument about legal personality. I enjoyed the advance warning of the comments that he will make this afternoon.
	The fact is that the European Union already has legal personality, to the extent that it now has the power to conclude agreements in its own name. The EU has concluded nearly 100 such agreements in its own right, and we benefit from them. They include the World Trade Organisation agreements; the Cotonou agreement with African, Pacific and Caribbean countries, which allows them access to the EU market; and agreements on development and trade with countries all over the world. None of that is unusual. Legal personality is a standard characteristic of international organisations ranging from the United Nations, the WTO and the International Criminal Court to the Universal Postal Union.

Bernard Jenkin: At the moment, for example, the European Union cannot conclude a military agreement with third countries. Once the EU has legal personality, it will be able to conclude full-blown military treaties with third countries.

Jim Murphy: I usually respect the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but in this case he is absolutely wrong. Issues of national defence and foreign policy are matters of unanimity decided by national Governments. The EU does not have competence from treaties to conclude the types of agreements that have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. For the first time, the competences are set out explicitly, and where they are not transferred they will still be exercised by national Governments. That is very clear.
	Various Opposition Members have spoken about the question of legal personality before. Alan Dashwood, professor of European law at Cambridge university, told the House of Lords Committee in evidence:
	There are many international organisations that have international legal personality such as the ECB and Euratom.
	He added that the EU's possession of a legal personality did not make it a state. Judge Sir David Edward, a former UK judge at the European Court of Justice, said:
	I do not see that the conferring of a legal personality on the Union, in so far as it replaces and succeeds the Community, really has any extensive effect at all.
	The Lisbon treaty introduces reformed institutions that will allow an enlarged EU to work effectively. It provides for reformed decision making with greater transparency and accountability. We want the EU to focus on where it can add value in a globalised world, and that is why we welcome a full-time president of the European Council. We want national parliaments to have a greater say in EU affairs on the issues that matter, and that is why we welcome more powers for national parliaments. We want British consumers and businesses to benefit from a completed single market, and that is why we welcome more streamlined decision making in the Council. We want more co-operation on children's rights, the environment and international development, and that is why we welcome clearer objectives for the EU in those areas.
	Finally, we want the EU to engage more effectively internationally, in respect of Burma, Zimbabwe, Iran and many other places around the globe. That is why we welcome the creation of the post of high representative for foreign affairs, who will be answerable, ultimately, to member states.

Mike Gapes: Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?

Jim Murphy: I was about to conclude, and my hon. Friend will have an opportunity a little later to contribute to the debate. My final sentence is that I commend the motion to the House.

William Hague: I beg to move amendment (b), in line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add
	disapproves of the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of the provisions on the effectiveness of European Union institutions and decision-making because the Treaty expands the power of EU institutions at Member States' expense by replacing the rotating presidency of the European Council with a permanent President, giving the EU a single legal personality, abolishing national vetoes in more than fifty areas and entrenching marine biological resources as an exclusive EU competence; notes that these provisions are largely identical to those in the original EU Constitution; further notes that the details of many of the new powers of the EU and its institutions will not be decided until after the Treaty is ratified; and regrets the Government's failure to secure the extensive changes Ministers sought to these provisions in the course of negotiations on this Treaty and its near-identical predecessor..
	It tells us something about the shortage of time in which we can debate these matters that we are already more than one third of the way through the period set aside for these motions on the effectiveness of EU institutions. Today's debate concerns some of the treaty's most important elements and they are notable not least because once again they mirror almost exactly the proposals of the EU constitution, on which all parties in the Houseincluding the one that was in some difficulty earlierpledged at the last election to hold a referendum.

Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: It is very early, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mike Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman is making the predictable point about the shortage of time, but he has also mentioned the referendum. If he and his colleagues had not spent so much time in every debate banging on about the referendum issue, would not there have been more time to discuss the substance of the proposals in the treaty?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman was elected on a manifesto that banged on about holding a referendum, so it is no surprise if the Opposition remind the House of that.
	However, I wanted to congratulate the Minister on starting his speech in the presence of so many Liberal Democrat MPs. It is the greatest number that I have ever seen gathered together when a by-election was not in prospect. When I saw them come in, it made me think that one of us might be ill. They have had some difficulty with getting their amendments selected for debate, but they would have no such problem if their amendment fulfilled their party's pledge to hold a referendum on the European treaty. If they tabled such an amendment, they would be rescued from the contortions in which they have become involved.
	There have been a number of developments in the debate already, and I want to take issue with one or two hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who I see is just returning to his place, informed us that only 10 per cent. of laws affecting the UK came through the EU. However, I have to tell him that the person who said that it was
	unacceptable that 50 per cent. or more of regulations come from the European Union
	was the Prime Minister. That is unfortunate, because falling out with the Prime Minister might not shorten his long and arduous journey back to the Front Bench.

Denis MacShane: Does the right hon. Gentlemanwho, like me, has a close connection to Rotherhamaccept that the Prime Minister, like him, can be wrong?

William Hague: I said that the right hon. Gentleman's journey back to the Front Bench was long and arduous, but I think that it just became of infinite length. However, we will all enjoy his utterances from the Back Benches in the many decades to come.
	I must also take issue with the Minister for Europe, who, when asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) to list the remaining exclusive competences of the nation state, came up with a rather short list of what is left of the nation states, underlining the dramatic nature of what is in the treaty. He was pressed by some of his hon. Friends about the role of national Parliaments, and about how we in the House of Commons exercise our powers, or the powers that we have in this Chamber, to affect the decisions of Governments of either party about European decision making. He said that the Government would come up with further proposals on the subject, but they already had an opportunity to do so.
	The matter was debated only three weeks ago on the Floor of the House, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), the shadow Leader of the House, made clear and substantive proposals: for instance, for a statutory scrutiny reserve, so that Ministers would have to gain parliamentary approval before negotiating in the Council of Ministers, as well as new powers for the European Scrutiny Committee to force a debate and vote in the House of Commons. It was only in response to Opposition pressure that the Government agreed to support the decision that produced the one substantive thing that happened in that debate: the decision to hold public meetings of the European Scrutiny Committee. The Government have had one opportunity to come up with substantive proposals for improving parliamentary scrutiny, and if they are really going to do so again, they should do it with great urgency, because there is enormous interest in the matter throughout the House.
	The treaty will introduce changes of great importance to the European Union's institutions and decision-making processes. The Minister mentioned most of them. They include, but are not limited to, the creation of a new president of the European Council; the endowment of the European Unionexplicitly in a treaty, for the first timewith a single legal personality; the renamed EU Foreign Minister; the new delineation of competences between the EU and member states; the establishment of qualified majority voting with co-decision by the European Parliament as the ordinary legislative procedure; the various other increases in the powers of the European Parliament; the new vote-weighting system for the Council of the European Union; and, of course, the ratchet clause, by which further vetoes can be abolished in future without recourse to further treaties.

Bernard Jenkin: If the question of legal personality for the European Union as a whole makes absolutely no difference, it prompts the question, why on earth are they bothering to put it in, then?

William Hague: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which could be made about so many aspects of the treaty that we are assured will make no difference, including the clarificationI think that is what the Minister called itof the competences of the EU and the nation states. If that is of no importance and only a clarification, why did the Government oppose the statement of so many of those competences? I shall come to that point in the course of my speech, which I will truncate in deference to the time and other hon. Members' need to speak.
	There is one argument that advocates of the treaty like to return to in this matter of decision making: that is that without the treaty, an enlarged EU would not really be able to function. Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, told the House that the constitution was
	necessary to make the accession work[ Official Report, 14 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 306.]
	but it has been more than three years since the great enlargement of the EU to 25 and subsequently 27 member states, and the EU is working perfectly well.
	The solid weight of testimony that the EU's existing structures have dealt more than adequately with enlargement is supplied partly by academic studies. The latest is a study by the distinguished member of the Government's Better Regulation Commission, Professor Helen Wallace, who has found not only that the picture is of business as usual rather than gridlock but that
	non-treaty reforms have played important roles in altering processes and procedures so as to improve the capacity of the institutions to do their work.
	Current and former Foreign Secretaries, in unguarded moments of frankness, seem to agree. I remind the House of the words of the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett), which I have mentioned in earlier debates on the Bill. Last year, she told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that
	there have been comments from various quarters that if the European Union cannot get an agreement
	on treaty reform
	there will be a huge crisis and that the EU will no longer be able to function...the last few months have shown that that is not actually so. The EU is functioning and has, indeed, reached some quite far-reaching decisions.
	If people do not listen to the previous Foreign Secretary, I hope that they will at least listen to the current one, who said that the EU's agreements on climate change
	have done more to show the relevance of the European Union than any amount of institutional tinkering,
	and I fully agree with him on that.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am following what the right hon. Gentleman is saying with interest and enjoyment. If there was no treaty at all, and we just stopped where we are, would the skies fall in? Would it be the end of civilisation as we know it? Would the European Union collapse, or would it just carry on?

William Hague: I think that the European Union would carry on rather well, as I think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. If the EU was faced with the situation that he describes, it would force it to concentrate on the great issues, including climate change, rather than on the permanent process of institutional tinkeringand by signing the treaty, the Government are opening the door to that permanent process.

Mark Hendrick: One of the treaty's many proposals for improving the European Union is the proposal to move away from six-month presidencies. As there are 27 member states, and as it is likely that there will be more in future, does the right hon. Gentleman think that it makes sense to have six-month presidenciesto have this game of musical chairs, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe put it?

William Hague: I want to come to that point in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my argument.

Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: Of course I will give way again to the hon. Gentleman, but let me just finish my point; otherwise, my speech will become as long as that made by the Minister, who generously gave way many times.
	It has been said that the treaty will make it easier for new legislation to be passed in the EU, but people in businesses up and down the land are not protesting about the lack of EU regulations and directives. Indeed, the latest British Chambers of Commerce burdens barometer, published less than a fortnight ago, shows that the vast majority71 per cent.of new burdens on business since 1997 have their origin in the EU. The Prime Minister, if not the right hon. Member for Rotherham, might agree with that figure. As those burdens have cost British businesses nearly 47 billion, making it easier for the EU to create more regulations should not really be high on our list of national priorities. The Prime Minister stated that it was unacceptable that 50 per cent. or more of regulations come from the European Union, although the Government have got into the habit of saying that they were merely asking a searching question whenever there is reference to anything that they said was unacceptablethat was what the Foreign Secretary did last week. Yet again, the Government's stated aim in Europe of having less regulation bears no relation to the policy that they are actually pursuing.
	One of the fundamental changes that the treaty makes was referred to by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick): the change to the work of the European Council and the Council of Ministers. The rotating presidency has been a permanent feature of the EU since its inception as the European Economic Community. It has survived thus far because it has helped to root the EU in the member stateseach country has had its chance at the helm to highlight its prioritiesand it has helped to give people some sense of ownership of what is going on in Europe. It is fair to say that the EU's enlargement means that the system would benefit from some reform; I can agree with the hon. Gentleman to that extent. Not every member state has the capacity to manage a presidency by itself, and the gap between presidencies has become very long. We support the sensible reform of introducing team presidencies for Council formations; the treaty allows for that. In my view, that should have been the pattern for the presidency of the Council itself.

Mike Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that enlargement has not made it necessary to make the reforms in question. Will he confirm for the record that he and his party are still in favour of enlargement of the European Union to include Turkey and the Balkans? Such enlargement would result in the European Union having 34 or 35 member states, rather than its current 27. In those circumstances, would he still be against the institutional reforms set out in the treaty?

William Hague: I was just dealing with that point; I acknowledged the need for some changes, but along the lines of the team presidencies that I mentioned, not along the lines of a permanent president of the European Council. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question fully, I can confirm that we are certainly in favour of enlargement of the EU to include the Balkanswe think that that is vitaland, indeed, Turkey. I think that there is agreement among the Front Benchers on that point.
	It is worth noting that the reform of voting weights set out in the treaty means that after 2014, voting weights will be in proportion to population. Looking to the medium and long term and the need for Turkish accession, it would be difficult to come up with a system that makes Turkish accession more difficult, because it will be harder for other countries to accept a heavily populated but relatively poor country when the proposed system for voting weights is in place in the European Council. Turkey would of course have the largest single block vote in the Council of Ministers. Much as I agree with the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that the structures set up by the treaty help the cause of Turkish accession.

Rob Marris: Good.

William Hague: Well, the hon. Gentleman says that, but most of us in the House are, I think, in favour of Turkish accession, and the measures will not help.

Gisela Stuart: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that capping countries' number of seats in the European Parliament, and guaranteeing small member states a minimum of six seats, would mean that Turkey's accession could not take place under the Lisbon treaty, because large countries would be so disproportionately disadvantaged that they would not put up with it?

William Hague: I had not thought of that point, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for adding to my argument. Those hon. Members who think that the treaty is the way to bring about enlargement will find that it actually puts in place great obstacles to enlargement, particularly for Turkey.

Angus Robertson: rose

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman will say that Scotland needs accession to the EU, too.

Angus Robertson: No, my intention is to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that many people in our neighbouring Nordic countries that are not part of the EU, such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroe islands, believe that in time they might want to join the European Union. Does he think that it is more or less likely that those countries will ever join if the common fisheries policy is enshrined as an exclusive competence of the EU?

William Hague: That does of course make joining more difficult for those countries; I think that I can make common cause with the hon. Gentleman on that. Under the treaty, the management of marine biological resources is made an exclusive competence of the EU under the common fisheries policy, which as he and I both know, has been an economic and ecological disaster for the United Kingdom. One would think that the way forward for fisheries policy would be a more decentralised approach, to say the least. We may differ about how that might be achieved, but a more decentralised approach is likely to be more successful. To enshrine in the treaty the management of marine resources as an exclusive competence of the European Union seems to be going in absolutely the wrong direction. That is another major problem with the treaty.

Rob Marris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for stiffening yet further my resolve to vote in favour of the Lisbon treaty, if he is right that it will make the accession of Turkey more difficult. Turkey has been messing the European Union around for 20 years. We have been saying, Clean up your human rights act and we'll let you in the European Union, but it has done almost nothing in 20 years. We should tell it to get lost.

William Hague: We may be getting away from the effectiveness of EU decision making, but I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He is not being fair to some of the efforts made in Turkey in recent years, although of course it has a long way to go. It is of huge geopolitical importance that the European Union should be able to welcome Turkish membership in the coming years. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on that, but I think that there is agreement in various parts of the House that the treaty will not help with Turkish accession, much though that might fortify the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the treaty.
	Before those interventions, I was speaking about possible ways of reforming the presidencies of the European Council. The choice that has been made in the treaty is the creation of a permanent president. That is a mistake. If Ministers are sincere in their apparent belief that that will strengthen the role of member states in the EU, their naivet about how political institutions work is rather alarming.
	A central institution will necessarily develop different goals and interests from the member states. To claim, as the Minister for Europe did last week, that that is nothing to worry about because there is already a president of the European Council is unconvincing. Having a national Head of Government preside over meetings for six months is not at all the same thing as having an EU figure separate from national Governments in place for at least two and a half years, nor does it convey the ambitious role that the presidency is set to play.
	One explanatory memorandum submitted to the European Union Committee in another place helpfully set out the president's role in some detail. It is worth taking note of the memorandum as it came from the Government, in the form of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). First, it said, the president is to chair and take forward the European Council's work. That is fairly obvious, but anyone with the slightest familiarity with the way in which political institutions work, which surely includes all of us in the House, knows that whoever chairs a meeting and manages its agenda is, in effect, in charge of it. The chairing of the Cabinet, for instance, is fundamental to the power of the Prime Minister of this country and was part of the development of the power of the Prime Minister.
	When that meeting is as important as the European Council, it makes its president in his capacity as chairman a very significant figure indeed. As the memorandum goes on, the president would provide
	a much more serious co-ordinating role than can be done by a job that changes every six months
	and would co-ordinate and prepare the work of the General Affairs Council. Taken together, the president would take the lead in setting and running the EU's whole work programme from the Council's sidea crucial role that would play a huge part in deciding what the EU actually does.
	As we have pointed out before, in the hands of a skilful politicianit would be bizarre to think that future presidents would not be exactly thatthe post-holder could use his or her powers to become the leading figure in the European Union. To take the role out of [Interruption.] If the Government think they will ever succeed in nominating me for that, they have another thing coming. To take the role out of the hands of national Governments holding it by rotation and place it in the hands of a single figure sitting at the Council table not as the representative of a nation state, but in his own right, is a fundamental change to how the EU works and it is one further illustration why there should be a referendum.
	The presidency is set to play an ambitious role. According to the Government's memorandum, the president's job is
	to increase Europe's global influence
	and to be the person
	to whom the foreign Presidents pick up the phone.
	On this, the Government are in happy agreement with the European Commission which, in a briefing paper, explains explicitly that the president is designed to answer Kissinger's famous question, Who do I call if I want to call Europe?
	The Government know full well that there are others in Europe putting the case for, eventually, direct election to that position, who believe that the establishment of the position in the treaty will open the way to that in another 10 or 15 years. That would mean a huge shift of political authority away from national Governments, and in the treaty the Government are opening the door to that. Given the importance of the post, it is extraordinary that crucial questions about how it would work in practice, what staff or secretariat would be at its service, and how, given its foreign policy role, it would interact with the high representative, have yet to be decided after the scrutiny of the treaty has been completed and after we have lost any opportunity to have a further say about it.
	It was noteworthy that of all witnesses that the Foreign Affairs Committee asked about how the two posts would relate to each other, only the current high representative thought there would be no probleman interesting pre-emptive strike in the bureaucratic turf war that the treaty will set in play.
	It is not helpful to the Government's newly favoured candidate, Mr. Tony Blair, who, it is reported, is interested in the job only if it is sufficiently important, that even his ardent advocate, the Minister for Europe, is unable to tell him whether it is worth his while because its powers have not been defined. The former Prime Minister agreed to create a post whose powers had not been set, but which someone of his abilities could very easily expand.
	Although the EU's institutions are working, there is no doubt that they could work better. One or two improvements are even in the treaty. We welcome the provision for open voting in the Council of the European Union, and I am pleased that after supporting this move and then opposing it, the Government reverted to their original position. The reduction in the number of Commissioners is also welcome, although it would be naive to represent that as taking some great scythe to European bureaucracy. It is not a cost-free reform, because there would be times when some nations with tens of millions of citizens would have no representative on the European Commission. I suspect that when we come to 2014, that will not be the end of the story.
	In the light of these modest but welcome changes that were secured, it is particularly regrettable that the reactive way that the Government have approached the matter from the beginning left them unable to secure highly desirable reforms. It is astonishing that the Government made such vast concessions on so many subjects to which they attached great importance in the strongest possible terms, but they were unable to obtain even mild concessions commanding wide-ranging support in the EU, such as the establishment of a single seat for the European Parliament which, by ending the current nonsense of the endless procession between Brussels and Strasbourg, would have saved the European taxpayer 200 million a year.

Mark Hendrick: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the decision on the matter should no longer require unanimity and that the veto on the seat of the European Parliament should be given up?

William Hague: No. I am saying that that should have been one of the Government's negotiating objectives, but they never raised a whisper about that in the treaty negotiations, while giving up many other points that they had tried initially to defend.
	To illustrate the point further, we do not tire of pointing out that the Government objected in the strongest terms to much of the content of the treaty. The delineation of competences, to which I have already referred briefly, is yet another example. The Government's chief negotiator described the article on shared competences as the worst of all worlds. There were repeated failed attempts to have the wording changed from what the right hon. Member for Neath described as an illustrative but not exhaustive list. Far from providing certainty as to what powers are the EU's and what powers are member states', the treaty, reproducing the Commission's text word for word, allows a vagueness that can only tend to allow the EU's institutions to enlarge their competence at member states' expense.
	It was not just how the EU's competences were delineated that the Government objected to, but their distribution. In repeated failed amendments the Government objected at the Convention to making competition an exclusive EU competence. It should be a shared competence, they insisted. They said that if the Community had exclusive competence in that area,
	the Member States would have no power to . . . establish rules to promote competition.
	All those objections apply equally today, but it is in the treaty.
	The Government also strongly and repeatedly objected to what is now proposed new article 2B(2) of the treaty, which provides for the EU to have exclusive competence to conclude international agreements under a range of circumstances. They rightly called for the deletion of that article, pointing out on this doctrine of implied competence:
	This is currently case law. Attempting to codify it in this way results in oversimplification. So best left for case law. All the caveats that would be required to make this accurate would also make it far too complex for a Constitution,
	yet it remains in the text. Absent, too, is the caveat that the Government called for on the common commercial policy.

David Heathcoat-Amory: This is an extremely serious part of the treaty. Under the doctrine of exclusive competence, member states will not be able to legislate or to make bilateral agreements with other member states if the subject matter touches in any way on an internal competence of the Union, which is a very long list. How does my right hon. Friend think that this will affect the ability of the United Kingdom to conduct an independent foreign policy, given our extensive bilateral agreements with a host of other countries and organisations throughout the world as a result of our global legacy?

William Hague: We discussed foreign policy last week, and we must acknowledge that the definitions set out in the table of competences are predominantly not about foreign policy, but they do create an exclusive list. For instance, in competition, which I have just mentioned, it undoubtedly reduces the sovereign power of the nation states. So it is not adequate for the Minister to say that this is simply a clarification. There is a change going on here in the powers of the nation states.

William Cash: As ever, my right hon. Friend makes an extremely good case. Does he agree that although competence sounds rather bureaucratic, it really means power, because it is the ability to legislate in that field that is the right of this House and of the British voters? That is the real problem, and it is draining away under the Government.

William Hague: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Of course it means power. Competence here is a euphemism for power, because it is an attempt to convey to people that the recipients of this competence might also be competent at it, which is not always the case. It means a shift of power. It means exclusive power over some of these areas. I had intended to list many more, but in the interests of time, I will not.
	On shared competence, the Government attempted to have trans-European networks and consumer protection kept as supplementary competences, which they are now, but again they gave way on this extension of EU power. This is equally true of the single legal personality. For the first time, the EU is explicitly endowed by treaty with its own legal personalitysomething that Tony Blair boasted of blocking as a potentially damaging proposal when the Amsterdam treaty was agreed.

Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice, and half of the debate has gone by, so I want to skip through much of what I was going to say.
	If we take these matters togetherthis movement of competences, the creation of the single legal personality, the creation of the presidency, the abolition of intergovernmental safeguards on criminal justice and policing, and the EU's new powers and role in foreign policy and defence, which we discussed last weekthis paves the way for a more powerful role for the EU at the expense of nation states across the board.
	This enhancement of the EU's powers should be of particular concern to the House, because for the first time an EU treaty seems to imposethe Minister discussed this in his speech and it can be argued in different directionsa legal duty on national Parliaments to the EU. He partly had that debate earlier with the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, so I will not go further into that now.
	It should be a matter of deep regret to Ministers that national Parliaments, which, for all their faults, are the one institution to which the peoples of Europe feel clear attachment and ownership, are the big losers in the renamed EU constitution. The loss of what even the Minister now admits comes to a total of more than 50 national vetoes, the expansion of the EU's powers over criminal justice, and all the other provisions that we have debated in broad outline over the past days, add up to a substantial loss of power for the House. More and more decisions will be made at the EU level over which the House will have little control, leaving our constituents, the voters, with fewer meaningful political levers to pull to secure their views and interests. In a century and a society where people feel that decisions are taken too remotely, it will mean that more of those decisions are taken more remotely still.
	All that national Parliaments have in compensation is one very small step to the better monitoring of EU proposals in the so-called orange card on subsidiarity. We welcome the small move that it represents, but we must be realistic about how little it means. The German constitutional court described the provision last week as ineffective and impractical. Given the indifference with which the Government have treated the views and input of Parliament and public in their negotiations on the treaty, and their utter disregard for their election promises, we have every right to be cynical about the Government's intentions on openness and accountability in the EU and the future use of these powers.
	We look forward with interest to the Government's response to our amendments next week on the ratchet clause, which will ensure that no more national vetoes could be abolished without primary legislation. If they and other parties are at all sincere in their claims to support parliamentary control and scrutiny over the Executive's actions in the EU, they will support that amendment.
	I have touched briefly on the weighted voting procedures as they would affect Turkish accession and I will leave it to my hon. Friends and others to debate those in more detail, as I have already been speaking for half an hour.
	When taken as a whole, the treaty is not needed by an EU that is coping with enlargement well enough. It does little to improve the EU's efficiency or its decision-making processes, while failing to deal with some issues that do need reform. It weakens still further the role of national Parliaments and above all shifts power away from member states to the EU's central institutions. Its provisions are not in the British interest, nor are they what the Government wanted. Its contents are a testimony to the weakness of the Government's negotiating skills and their want of vision for Europe. Where Europe needs flexibility, the treaty brings rigidity, and where it needs to change to let power flow from the bottom up, it gathers it to political institutions remote from electorates. It is a document born of a political vision for Europe out of place in the 21st century. The whole European project would benefit from its rejection, but, most importantly, its importance and profound effects on the way that this country is governed merit a decision of the British people in the referendum that they were promised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which operates from now.

Patricia Hewitt: It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe in a debate that has already proved a great deal livelier and more interesting than even those of us who have been following the proceedings very closely had anticipated.
	I want to bring the House back to the fundamental reason why we need the European Union and why Britain's membership of that Union is in our national interest. It is simply the growing interdependence in the world in which we live, and the fact that there are more and more problems that we will only solve together and more and more aspirations that we will only achieve together, whether in regard to climate change, energy security, the trafficking of children and women, or the fight against international terrorismthe many issues that we have been discussing in these debates on the Bill. It is no longer enough, if indeed it ever was, to work simply within the confines of one country. That much at least might be common ground across the House.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have said many times in the House that what many of us really want is an EU of independent democratic states, co-operating voluntarily on matters of mutual interest and benefit, and many Front Benchers have agreed with that. This treaty is not about that; it is about centralising power and taking away that kind of mutual agreement between independent countries, which I have supported, and which also seemed to be supported by Ministers.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend and I have a completely different view of the EU. His description of a purely voluntary co-operation between independent nation states does not represent the European Community as it was originally formulated. There has always been, within the EU and the Communities that preceeded it, a pooling of sovereignty where the member states see real advantage to their own national interest and their own people in doing so. My hon. Friend does not agree with that and I respect his view, but I profoundly disagree with it.
	To reinforce the point, I point out that the EU has led the world in shaping a different kind of institution suited to the demands of an interdependent world, which does not represent an end to the nation state, or some kind of new imperial force located in Brussels the threat that is so often conjured up on the Opposition Benchesbut rather is a pooling of sovereignty for specific purposes by nation states, which in my view, and I believe that of the Government, is in our interests. There is a clear dividing linenot so much between my hon. Friend and me, but between the Labour and Conservative parties.
	The institutions of the European Union have to evolve with its changing nature and, particularly, its changing size. I was surprised by the vehemence with which the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks attacked what I have always seen as an immensely commonsensical proposal for a European Council president whose term would last two and a half years rather than six months. It seemed to me and most commentators that that was essential as the European Union enlarged.
	Let me, for once, pay tribute to Margaret Thatcher, who as Prime Minister championed the enlargement of the European Union to include the countries of central and eastern Europe that had so recently escaped from the dominance of the Soviet Union. I have no doubt that all of us who supported that enlargement should now be supporting the changes in the workings of the EU, in particular the creation of a new Council president, that so many of us believe are essential if an enlarged EU is to work effectively.
	A further point is that the creation of that presidency is not only essential in respect of enlargement, but will enhance the power of member states by enhancing the power and effectiveness of the Council itself. I prefer not the view taken by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, but that taken by one of the very eminent advisers appointed by the leader of the Conservative party. I refer, of course, to Dame Pauline Neville-Jones, a member of the senior expert group, which has concluded:
	The creation of the post of the President of the European Council, making the European Council an institution in its own right
	amounts
	to an increase in the power of the Member States within the EU's structures.
	That view is also shared by a former Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe.

Mark Hendrick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that given the economic, political and military rise of countries such as China, India, Russia and Brazil, having a Council president and a Europe that speak with one voice is that much more important if we are to enhance our influence in the world?

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree. My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Whether on climate change or on a whole range of economic issues, the largest single market in the world needs to be able to operate effectivelyand, when there is agreement, to speak with a single voiceif we are to have the influence that we need, not only on the United States but on China, India and other emerging countries.
	In this debate, much has already been made about the extension of qualified majority voting. It is absurd for the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks to complain that we have not secured an end to the rotation of the European Parliament between Brussels and StrasbourgI entirely agree on that point; we should get rid of the nonsense of the Strasbourg sittingswhile opposing the extension of qualified majority voting. Applying QMV to the location of the Parliament would be the only way in which we could get rid of the sittings in Strasbourg.
	When I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I spent many happy hours representing the United Kingdom within the World Trade Organisation; there are national representations as well as the EU's at the WTO. I am not proposing that the WTO should be reformed along the lines of the European Unionit is a different organisation with different purposes, although its reform is clearly needed. However, an organisation that operates on the basis that no decision can be made except through the unanimous decision of every single one of its members finds it increasingly difficult to arrive at any decisions at all. We are finding that out, to the great detriment of developing countries, in relation to the Doha development round.
	I entirely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), who is no longer in his place. Qualified majority voting forces member states to rely on argument and persuasion rather than on veto, and in practice it enables us to overcome the protectionist instincts that, unfortunately, still exist among some of our European colleagues. Frankly, overcoming those would be greatly in all our interests. In most cases, the treaty's extension of qualified majority voting relates to procedural, bureaucratic and technical matters, but it also relates to important issues such as energy policy. Given that, under the reformed voting procedure, the United Kingdom will have a greater share of the votes within the Council of Ministers, the treaty's provisions are wholly in our national interest.
	I should like to make a brief point about national Parliaments. The treaty's requirement that the Commission submit its proposals directly to Parliaments when they are submitted to the European Parliament and the Council is immensely helpful, and I look forward to the debates in this House that will make full use of that provision. The treaty gives more power to national Parliaments, member states, the United Kingdom andthrough the power for petitionsto the public of our own country and of the rest of the European Union. The Conservative party opposes all that, confirming that it is irredeemably the party of the past and not the future. If that was not bad enough, it compounds that grave error by threatening to reopen the treaty even if or when it is ratified by every EU member state. It calls for a completely different treaty on which it has no support across the European Union.

Mark Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given how difficult your job is and how important it is to the workings of the House that the House should operate in order, will you give me guidance on whether it is in order for a right hon. Member to question decisions of the Chairindeed, to call them an outrageoutside this place?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure what immediate relevance that has to our proceedings, but any question or criticism of the Chair can be done only on a substantive motion.

Jo Swinson: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who has been a frequent attender of these debates. She outlined well the bigger picture of what we are discussing and the successes of the European Union in the past 60 years or so.
	I am a pro-European, but the European Union is certainly not without its faults. For too long, power has been concentrated

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Swinson: I should like to make a little progress, but then I am sure that I will not want to miss out on an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
	For too long, power in the EU has been concentrated among those who are appointed, not elected. The structures of the EU have often proved cumbersome to say the least, at times even making this House look modern and streamlined by comparison, which is no easy task. I therefore welcome the opportunity to discuss the Lisbon treaty's proposed changes to the institutions of the EU.

Mark Harper: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Swinson: In one or two minutes, I certainly will.
	I was pleased to be here for what surely must be a first in one of these debates. I refer, of course, to that elusive thing: finding a bit of the treaty that the Conservatives agree withthe provisions on the Council of Ministers team presidencies and fewer Commissioners. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was not here to hear that, because he might think that I am joking when I tell him later, but at least I will be able to prove it to him in  Hansard.

Mark Harper: On the subject of agreeing with colleagues, can the hon. Lady tell the House whether she agrees with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) that the Speaker's decision not to select the amendment for debate was an outrage?

Jo Swinson: I certainly find it incredibly disappointing that we are not able to debate the amendment that stands in the name of my right hon. Friend. We feel very passionately about this, as is evidenced. However, I must return to the amendment that has been selected.

Gisela Stuart: Does the fact that the Liberal Democrats were unable to have their amendment debated mean that they will vote for the other amendment, which asks for a two-question referendum?

Jo Swinson: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Lady. Fortunately, we have had at least one occasion on which to test the House on this matter; it is just a shame that so many hon. Members, particularly those who would like us to leave the EU, decided not to vote for a referendum that would enable us to do that, no doubt disappointing many of their constituents.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Swinson: I will give way again shortly; I should like to make some progress.
	The current six-month rotating presidency is clearly not a sensible system for the European Council. It means that the body lacks direction and consistency. Like many Members, I was pleased to see the focus that the UK Government gave to the Make Poverty History campaign during the last UK presidency of the European Council. While some progress was made on that front, I believe that much more could and should have been achieved. A longer presidency with proper time to set an agenda and follow through on issues is therefore a good idea. In the context of the extension of the term for this role, we were all very entertained on Second Reading, and then a little again today, by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and his imagery of a supreme president Blairperish the thought. Although he paints a very memorable picture, away from fantasy land the reality is that the president of the European Council proposed in the treaty does not gain additional powers and the role will remain the same as it is now, but with a slightly less frantic turnover of occupants.
	There are genuine concerns about how the president of the European Council, the President of the Commission and the new expanded high representative role will interact. I understand those concerns and would like to hear more from the Minister about how those roles will be clearly defined and made to be complementary to one another rather than in constant conflict.
	Let me turn to the Council of Ministers. The moves towards qualified majority voting in this respect are arguably less significant than in the Maastricht treaty. As we have heard, 16 areas will not apply to the UK or are areas for which we have negotiated opt-ins, 14 are purely procedural, and the rest are clearly in the UK national interest. We have heard in previous debates about the British entrepreneurs who will be helped by facilitating self-employment in other member states, the British businesses that will benefit from better co-ordination of intellectual property rights, the advantages in making EU humanitarian aid operations more streamlined, and the energy liberalisation aspect. In those cases, the move to QMV helps the UK by reducing the likelihood of such welcome measures being blocked by states that are perhaps less enlightened and less committed to market liberalisation. As we heard from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), the changes to the way in which QMV is calculated in the Council are also clearly in the national interest because the power of the UK's vote will go up from 8 to 12 per cent. Given the general dislike on the Tory Benches of anything being decided in Brussels, even on clearly trans-national issues such as climate change or cross-border crime, I wonder why they do not welcome that stronger voice for the UK in these discussions.

James Clappison: The hon. Lady is making a valiant performance in the course of her somewhat lonely vigil on her Benches. On cross-border crime, can we take it, then, that it is Liberal party policy to opt into the justice and home affairs provisions?

Jo Swinson: We certainly want to ensure that cross-border crime is dealt with swiftly, and in measures relating to that the UK must examine any of the proposals that come forward and decide on them on their meritsit is as simple as that. To take the opposite view and say that there is never any point in co-ordinating with our international colleagues could place us in a situation whereby we were unable to tackle drug trafficking, people trafficking and the horrendous crimes that need to be tackled.
	On the European Commission, there is an old maxim, with which I am sure Members are familiar, that a camel is a horse designed by committee. I am sure that those of us with experience in politics know that that can be true and that the larger the committee, the more unwieldy it becomes. With 27 member states, the Commission faced that very problem, and it is eminently sensible to move to reduce its size. Indeed, even the Conservatives have agreed that that is a welcome move. This morning, I attended a debate about the western Balkans where many Members said that it would be welcome to see other Balkan states gaining accession to the EU. That issue will clearly become more important as the number of member states increases.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Lady seems to be an erstwhile expert on the Conservative party's policy on Europe. Does she agree or disagreea straight answer is what I requirewith the position taken by the hon. Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who have implored their constituents and their own party to vote for a referendum, which was agreed in the hon. Lady's manifesto in 2005? Are they right or wrong?

Jo Swinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is putting words into the mouths of my hon. Friends, but I certainly do not agree with the position that has been outlined in some cases, and I make no apologies for that.
	On the European Parliament, one of the biggest criticisms of the European Union has been that the balance of power is weighted in favour of those parts of it that are appointed instead of directly elected, such as the Commission and the Council of Ministers. More co-decision between the Parliament and the Council is therefore welcome, as is the stronger role that the Parliament will have in appointing the President of the Commission. We would like major reform in areas such as the common fisheries policy, which we have heard about from Scottish nationalist Members, and the common agricultural policy, and they will benefit from the additional parliamentary scrutiny that will result. It is not easy for the European Parliament to be seen as close to voters, particularly with MEPs covering such large constituencies. Indeed, I do not envy my colleagues who are MEPs in Scotland and whose constituency is the entirety of Scotland. As a Member of this House, I find it enough of a challenge to ensure that I represent 65,000 electors. Nevertheless, the European Parliament is closer to voters than the alternatives, which are unelected and therefore less accountable, so these moves are welcome.
	I also welcome the idea of the citizen's initiative, enabling 1 million people to petition the Commission to take action on a specific issue. Time will tell how much that is used

Mark Harper: Given that the hon. Lady is so keen on citizens' initiatives, does she think that it would be an initiative to give citizens in her own constituency a referendum on the treaty, as she promised?

Jo Swinson: As we saw earlierother people in the Chamber may not have been asleep when it happenedthe Liberal Democrats would like to have a referendum on the major issue of whether we are in or out of Europe. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that I have had a total of nine representations from my constituents on this, so it is clearly not the top issue in my mailbag. In fact, I consult my constituents on a wide range of matters, and I welcome the fact that the House is doing so by trialling lots of new modernisation procedures such as more e-democracy, petitioning and the excellent work of the education unit.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Swinson: I have been very generous [ Interruption. ] I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he was on a Select Committee trip with methat is the only reason.

Graham Stuart: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who is, as ever, most gracious.
	The hon. Lady has explained why she thinks that her constituents should be given an opportunity to vote in a referendum on whether we are in or out of Europe and why that is, in her party's view, the substantive question. However, given that that has not found support in this House, she has not explained why she none the less wants to remove her constituents' right to vote in a referendum on the treatythe policy of her party on which she stood when she was elected to this House.

Jo Swinson: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a limited amount of time for this debate. I suspect that the hon. Lady is being sidetracked into issues that are not strictly relevant to the motion that is before the House, so I hope that she will not be tempted too much by the hon. Gentleman.

Jo Swinson: I will certainly try to resist that temptation, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I will just say that the two things are very different for the following reason. The constitution would have abolished all the preceding treaties: Rome, Nice, Amsterdam, Maastricht and the Single European Act. Therefore, a vote on the constitution would have been a de facto vote on in or out, so an in-or-out referendum would actually be on the substantive issue. We support such a referendum; we will continue to campaign for it and hope that it will find favour in this House. I also welcome the citizens initiative idea, which may need to be developed or changed. Time will tell how much it is used, but the principle of trying to connect better with the electorate is a good one.
	Extending the time for national Parliaments to consider legislation is obviously a good idea. There are many practical difficulties, such as different parliamentary timetables, recess dates and so on, that make six weeks inadequate. Is eight weeks enough? We will have to see, but it is certainly a step in the right direction, and it could be the subject of further review. We also heard about the yellow card, which is an important innovation for the protection of subsidiarity, and one that Conservative Front Benchers felt minded to agree with.
	Last Wednesday, during the foreign policy debate, we discussed in more detail the role of the high representative, and without going over that ground again, let me just say that it is sensible to have one set of offices, rather than two, working on the EU's external relations, with one individual responsible. That removes confusion and strengthens the voice of the EU where there is unanimity, and it therefore amplifies the view of the UK on such issues.
	A legal personality for the EU is not the huge move that the Tories would have us believe. Many organisations have legal personality, from the United Nations to the Universal Postal Union, and indeed the European Community that preceded the European Union also had such status.
	Despite the scaremongering we have seen on the passerelle clause, there is a secure triple lock that will, importantly, enable the reduction of EU powers. In any case, before any change is made to voting arrangements, the European Parliament, Council and national Parliaments must all agree, so this House will retain the final say.
	Finally, new article 49(a) in the Maastrict treaty, or the treaty on European Union, explicitly sets out how a member state would go about withdrawing from the EU. For most of our constituents, this article gets to the nub of the debate they are having about Europeto the extent that they are engaged in such a debate at all. What is Britain's future? Is it as a strong voice in the EU, with more global influence, or is it outside, weak and isolated? It would be welcome to have such a debate in the country, and as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am disappointed that we will not be voting on that issue today.
	I know that there are many members on the Conservative Benches who subscribe to the Better Off Out campaign, and as much as I disagree with them, they are entitled to their views. I find it only a little strange that they are by and large opposing moves in the treaty that set an explicit framework for countries to be able to leave the EU should they wish. That seems a bit of a strange position.
	The changes will help the EU to work better. Although the Union will still obviously be far from perfect, they are a step in the right direction. Therefore, we will not support the amendment that has been selected. It is a shame, however, that we will not have the opportunity to vote on the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg).

Gisela Stuart: It is a great pleasure to follow the Lib Dems, who I am sure will still be basking in the glory of getting the headline that they were thrown out of the Chamber for demanding a referendum. I just wish that they had demanded one on the real question, which is whether we agree with this treaty.
	I want to confine my comments to national Parliaments. I went to Brussels in February 2002 and rather foolishly agreed to represent national Parliaments at the Convention on the Future of Europe. I confess that if I had imagined I would still be talking about it six years on, I would have chosen a different job, but there we are. I want people to think back to the debates we had on the role of national Parliaments. Front Benchers keep saying that the treaty gives more power to national Parliaments, but that is based on an interesting definition of what amounts to power.
	There are three different strands to the debate. Do I argue that national Parliaments should become a separate institution within the institutional framework of the European Union? No, I do not. We should have the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers representing Governments. I am not an advocate of a system whereby national Parliamentsours or any otherhabitually arrive at a different view from their own Governments. That does not mean that such an outcome should be precluded, but a system in which it is seen to be the function of Parliaments to oppose their own Governments would seem rather absurd.
	There is, however, a role for national Parliaments to scrutinise and to monitor a principle that seems extraordinarily important: the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. When the working group on national Parliaments was first set up, and the issue of subsidiarity was brought up, an old hand who was a legal adviser during the Maastricht negotiations muttered to me, Oh, that's the dud they sold to Major. John Major returned from the Maastricht negotiations saying, We have negotiated a protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality; we should keep the two together. This will mean that Brussels will never have any influence on anything that is not appropriate at EU level. He confidently predicted that 25 per cent. of the legislation coming from Brussels would be rescinded because it breached that principle. Whitehall looked at the matter, but nothing happened. I thought something similar was going on when the two working groups were split so that one considered only subsidiarity. That group came back with the idea of the yellow and orange card, but rejected our proposals on the red card, which would have had some significance. National Parliaments were dealt with by a separate group, so there was a division.
	During the negotiations, the Commission started saying that subsidiarity is very important and, mysteriously, the figure of 25 per cent. came up again. Again, nothing happened. When we inquired whether the Commission could come up with a single example of when it had withdrawn a proposal because it breached the principle of subsidiarity, it could come up with only onein 10 years. It was one of the bright ideas put forward during a UK presidency, when we proposed an EU zoo directive, which would have regulated the water temperature for sealions. Even the rest of Europe thought that that was slightly wacky, and it was thrown out. One example in 10 years does not suggest to me that this is an important, meaningful or effective mechanism.

Iain Duncan Smith: I was present during the Maastricht debates, and I did not believe any of that at the time, which is why I voted againstand why I voted for a referendum, by the way. The key point is that the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who loves all this stuff, was absolutely right earlier on. From the outset, the institutions were set up with one purpose in mind, which was centralisation, and taking powers from the nation state. It is impossible to reverse that process at any stage.

Gisela Stuart: I am not quite so gloomy. If the Commission were to take the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality seriously, it would change the way in which it legislates. Currently, we put a statement on our Bills saying that they comply with the Human Rights Act, for example. I would like every Commission proposal to start with a preamble, saying, The following measures cannot be achieved at the nation state level because. . . I would change the presumption. Rather than national Parliaments having to say that there were breaches of subsidiarity, the Commission would have to prove its observation of subsidiarity.

Patricia Hewitt: Does my hon. Friend accept that what she proposes is exactly what is set out in the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? Article 5 of the protocol says:
	Draft legislative acts shall be justified with regard to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. Any draft legislative act should contain a detailed statement making it possible to appraise compliance...The reasons for concluding that a Union objective can be better achieved at Union level shall be substantiated by qualitative and, wherever possible, quantitative indicators.
	It seems to me that she achieved exactly what she wanted, albeit not at the Convention, but in the treaty.

Gisela Stuart: With the greatest respect, I disagree with my right hon. Friend. At the moment, the treaty tells us that something can be achieved at Union level without breaching the principle. I would like it to be the other way round. I would like it to determine whether something cannot be achieved at national level. The presumption would be changed, and when it is proved that something has to be done at European level, such as in the case of the environment and certain other things, I would be perfectly content to give the Union more power and say that something must be done at that level because we cannot do it. But the presumption is the wrong way round.
	Similarly, as we are talking about institutional arrangements, the Commission should, like Parliament, follow a five-year mandate, and anything that has not been achieved within the lifetime of one Commission should fall, instead of having negotiations that drag on for five or 20 years, when things get negotiated to death.

Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend will know about the German Reinheitsgebot, which states that one cannot brew beer unless it contains water and pure ingredients. Under that law, every other beer is illegal and unacceptable in Germany. That is a clear breach of the single market. If her proposal had been included on the front of every directive, the Bundestag would never have voted to do away with the Reinheitsgebot. Consequently, no beer from outside Germany would be on sale in that country.

Gisela Stuart: That is a genuine problem for me. As a Bavarian brewer's granddaughter, I would be happy to drink only German beer. However, that is not the point. I was making a wider point, as hon. Members know. With some matters, such as the single market, we have different rules, but as we expand we should change the presumption, whether we are dealing with health or shared competences and so on. If the single market is so important, why have not we fully implemented it? However, I am digressing.
	I want to consider the role of national Parliaments. I do not want them to be completely separate institutions, but proper guardians of subsidiarity. The current system does not work. I know that through chairing meetings of 27 countries, which sent representatives of their national Parliaments to Brussels. The only thing about which we could agree was that, if it was Tuesday, we were in Brussels. We could sometimes agree about whether it was raining. However, trying to get two thirds of representatives to agree on a matter in eight weeks is impossible. Everything is out of synchronisation.
	If we are serious about the role of national Parliaments, the House must change the way in which it operates. It is not a matter of strengthening the European Scrutiny Committee or providing more information, which would simply cause even more confusion. The role of the Minister for Europe needs to be changed. We need a Minister for Europe who is not based in the Foreign Office and who comes to the Dispatch Box regularly to answer questions about negotiations in Brussels and the deals we have madewhether on health, trade and so on. That person needs to fulfil the political function that UKRep currently performs. It is incredibly powerful and not accountable at the Dispatch Box. If that were changed, hon. Members would routinely come here and ask questions.
	I object to the provision in the treaty on the people's petition. It was included deliberately to keep the Germans happy. They felt that, without that provision, the Green party, which was a coalition partner at that point, would demand a referendum. The provision was included because their constitution allows for a referendum. I object to it because national Parliaments do not have the power to petition the Commission. Everybody furiously protects the Commission's right to be the only initiator of legislation. Yet we say that a significant number of people should have the right of initiation. That is wrong and undermines this place even more.
	When the Minister talks about more power for national Parliaments, will he please not only focus on more information but take notethat also applies to the Deputy Leader of the House, who is sitting next to himthat the House is currently failing in its duty to make European decisions accountable? Even outside the treaty, we can make significant changes that give genuine power to national Parliaments. So far, we have not done that.

Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who is the best sort of Eurosceptic. Not only is she genuinely European, but she approached the process, which started six years ago, in good faith. Her frustration with, for example, subsidiarity, is purely the result of her experience, not of any prejudice that she brought to the matter. I made a special study of subsidiarity when the Maastricht treaty was considered in the House. The problem with it is that it does not attack the doctrine of the occupied field or question the powers and competences that the European Union should have. It was always a charade and if she worries at the question for much longer, she will prove to herself that one cannot push water up a hill.
	I intend to speak about EU institutions and EU decision making about defence, and the impact that the decision-making arrangements are likely to have on the EU's relations with NATO and on the defence policies of member states. It is typical of Ministers to say that defence is entirely governed by unanimity. That is not true and I will demonstrate how qualified majority voting now permeates decision making in EU defence, and will ultimately compromise the independence of the defence policies of member states and undermine NATO primacy in the defence policies of EU members of NATO.
	First, the European Defence Agency becomes an institution of the Union. That has a wide-ranging remit including not least,
	defining a European capabilities and armaments policy.
	Such a policy will inevitably become a general obligation of EU membership. I will remind hon. Members of what those obligations entail. The treaty spells them out. Article 3(a)(3) states that the Union and member states shall
	assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.
	Article 11 mentions
	the achievement of an ever-increasing degree of convergence of Member States' actions.
	The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and shall comply with the Union's action in this area... They shall refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
	Those are far more burdensome obligations than membership of NATO requires of us.

James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend realise that his drawing attention to the important incremental change in the wording of the treaty about convergence of actions constitutes the first time that that serious change has been discussed in the House, and that the time for debate on security policy has passed?

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. The change is significant and represents a general obligation that has entered into the treaty without qualification.
	There is no obligation for a member state to participate in the European Defence Agency, but the EDA's statute, seat and operational rules are subject to QMV in the Council. According to the EDA's statute, the steering board also makes decisions by QMV. If a member state participates, it does not have a veto. Obviously, if it does not participate, it does not have a veto. The policies that flow from the EDA are policies of the European Union that must be observed actively and unreservedly.

Gerald Howarth: How does my hon. Friend think that the EU would react to a member state that sought to flout the suggestion that it should support EU policy unreservedly?

Bernard Jenkin: That member state would be in breach of the treaty. Let us be clear: there is no remit for the court in those mattersat least, that is the way in which I currently interpret the treatybut that member state would be in breach of international law, which would be a serious matter. If we think that that is likely to happen, we should not sign the treaty.
	Let us consider the other major innovation in defence in the Lisbon treaty. It is called permanent structured co-operation. Again, I submit that, over time, it will become the framework in which all member states have to conduct their defence policies.
	Article 42(6) of the consolidated treaty states:
	Those Member States whose military capabilities fulfil higher criteria and which have made more binding commitments to one another in this area with a view to the most demanding missions shall establish permanent structured cooperation within the Union framework.
	That refers to a small group of states that gets together to go further and faster than their counterparts.
	Article 46(2) makes it clear that
	the Council shall adopt a decision establishing permanent structured cooperation...by qualified majority voting.
	Permanent structured co-operation is therefore established by QMV. The obligations on member states are shown in the second protocol to the treaty. They are onerous. The protocol refers to a member state undertaking
	to develop its defence capacities through the development of its national contributions and participation, where appropriate, in multinational forces.
	Let us be clear: the commitment of forces is a matter for unanimity, which is what the Government keep stating. However, paragraph 4 of article 46 of the consolidated texts says:
	If a participating Member State no longer fulfils the criteria or is no longer able to meet the commitments referred to in Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol...the Council may...act by a qualified majority
	to remove that member from the structured co-operation. With the conjunction of those double qualified majority votes, the European Union's policy is effectively removed from the scope of a single member state's veto. It is therefore completely untrue that unanimity is the rule in defence, as the Government keep insisting.
	Let us step back from the detail for a minute. From defence being barely mentioned as a possibility at Maastricht, there is now a clear direction, with the introduction of the new decision-making mechanisms and institutions in the Lisbon treaty. First we had the St. Malo agreement. The then Prime Minister insisted at Amsterdam that the Western European Union should not become another EU institution, but he allowed that to happen at Nice. The Government opposed the whole principle of permanent structured co-operation because, as the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), said, it would
	undermine the inclusive, flexible, model of ESDP that the EU has agreed;
	but here it is in the treaty, and it is easy to see the risks of allowing such an institution into the EU treaties.
	Permanent structured co-operation is the new defence decision-making mechanism in the Lisbon treaty, which, to quote from the protocol, claims to herald
	a new stage in the development of the European security and defence policy.
	The provisions are therefore not just a tidying exercise; they are a big step forward. We know that the French intend to make defence a major priority of their presidency. The Government say that the provisions of title V remain intergovernmental in character, but the House must be aware that the term intergovernmental is not a precise term. NATO represents classic intergovernmentalism, but EU intergovernmentalism involves an altogether more fluid and dynamic structure, reflected in the mechanisms for decision making that I have described. The all-important relationship between NATO and European security and defence policy remains, however, ill defined and paralysed by technical disputes, with no certainty about who does what in the event of an international crisis, as the Secretary-General of NATO himself said just a year ago.
	The Lisbon treaty institutions and decision making will relegate NATO primacy to the status of a constitutional monarch: largely ceremonial and largely irrelevant to the day-to-day functioning of defence policy in the European Union. We would do well to recall Bismarck's adage:
	I have always found the word 'Europe' on the lips of those...who wanted something from others...which they dared not demand in their own names.
	The real security threats to the European Union that European militaries should address lie far from our shores. Afghanistan is the most immediately pressing security issue currently facing the European Union. If the new EU institutions and decision-making mechanisms were seriously going to help Europe in, to quote the treaty,
	fully assuming its responsibilities within the international community,
	its members would be actively fulfilling the combined joint statement of requirements for the NATO mission in Afghanistan and not leaving the bulk of the fighting to NATO's Anglophone members.

Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I am not going to give way, as I am just concluding my remarks.
	While Europe fiddles with the ESDP, NATO burns in Afghanistan. While the Government scratch their head over how to persuade other NATO members to widen burden sharing, the EU continues to support EU defence institutions and decision making, which has reinforced the idea among most European nations that somehow Europe will provide the defence that they are not willing to pay for themselves.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The interesting thing about the speech that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) just made is that he highlighted an aspect of the discussion that is in danger of being lost. When people want to take over power, they do not just change the institutions and the voting patterns; they extend the work of those who are in control of the Secretariat and, over and above that, look for other reasons to extend their power. In many ways, the institutions of the EC are not so much confrontational as made up of oozing material that gently finds its way into the cracks.
	What we should do is very simple: follow the money. Politicians, particularly those of us in democracies, are always wise to follow the money. Where is it going? How is it being used? What is its purpose? Over the past 10 years, there has been a clear and material programme of removing powers, particularly in transport, from the House of Commons to European institutions. Let us not think that we are talking about something unimportant. The annual budget in 2008 for major transport policy areas, projects and agencies is 22 million for the European Aviation Safety Agency, which we never felt the need for before, 33 million for the European Maritime Safety Agency and 7.91 million for transport safety.
	The list goes on, and includes the ubiquitous Galileo, which we are told is not needed by a European institution; indeed, we certainly must not have Galileo, becauseheaven help uswe might have a defence use for it in a European army. Nevertheless, we must continue to follow its development, which includes a programme of 670 million in the next year and a supervisory authority costing another 7.9 million, which contribute to a total budget of 803.82 billion.
	Why is that important? It is important because, no matter which aspect of transport we consider, we see how European regulations are increasingly taking over control. We find that we have packages in railways, for example. We have four packages in railwayswe are launching forth on the fifthalthough the contents of the first package have not been put into operation. We see the movement in European aviation from British institutions, whether they are for checking the safety of aircraft in the air or the training of engineers in the aviation industry, to European institutions.
	We also see the changes in the grands projets such as Galileo, which are taking many hundreds of thousands of pounds from our transport budgets. Let us be quite clear: if we contribute at the rate of 17 per cent. of that budget, on the basis of transport alone, we are giving up the right practically to fulfil a whole list of projects that are desperately needed in the United Kingdom. However, we are constantly told that we should not be arguing about that, because we influence such matters only through joint co-operation.
	What we are debating today is, in a sense, a done deal. We are talking about powers that have already been leached away and powers that will continue to be leached away. When we talk about national Parliaments, we should accept that if we in the House are not very careful, we will give up even more powers to those who will take decisions not on the political grounds that are acceptable to our electorate, but on the grounds of a spurious European general interest.
	When someone enters politics, the first important concept that they come across is the concept of them. Whether a person starts at the council, county or Government level, they are of concern to their constituents. They take the decisions, they are responsible and they are spending our money. Every elected member of a body has to take account of that concept and explain not only who they are, but when they are we. The difficulty with the Bill is that they are not we. They are not elected and not representative, and they are creating a highly complex set of machinery that is moving further and further away from elected representatives and basic national Parliaments. The result, in all circumstances, will be disastrous for the future of the United Kingdom.

Bill Wiggin: I should like to talk about competences, and about marine biological resources in particular. Instead of having a debate about the levels at which marine biological resources and the marine environment are best managed, and clarifying those responsibilities in a directive or treaty that would hand more powers back to the UK, we are being forced to accept EU exclusive competence. I fear that, once this power grabwhich is codified in articles 2B and 2C of the Lisbon treaty, and is identical to the provisions in the EU constitutionhas taken place, it will be difficult ever to reverse or amend the problem in the future. Most importantly of all, however, the measures will not materially benefit our marine environment, and will damage our conservation efforts.
	In the past, we have seen the EU frustrate our efforts to protect the marine environment, which in the UK includes more than 44,000 animal and plant species. French pair trawlers are able to operate up to six nautical miles from our coast, crushing, wounding, drowning and killing porpoises and dolphins, which are supposed to be protected under EU law. The Government banned our fishermen from using this harmful practice, but the European Commission rejected their proposal to make this ban effective for all vessels fishing within the 12 nautical mile limit.
	The Fisheries Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), said:
	We banned pair trawling in the western channel. We do not have the ability to ban French vessels...We presented our argument in Europe and we took unilateral action to ban pair trawlingthat constitutes taking an effective measure.
	Now, he is not a bad chap and he had the decency to blush a sort of salmon pink on the top of his head as he went on:
	We argued our case and we were unable to persuade others, but we are taking action ourselves.[ Official Report, 31 January 2008; Vol. 471, c. 456.]
	Well, I say tell that to the families who might have the misfortune to find a dead cetacean washed up on the beach. That really is not good enough at all. Given the Government's admission that the EU has already blocked our domestic efforts to protect our marine mammals, can it really be trusted with exercising exclusive competence in this matter?

Kelvin Hopkins: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is not the only real solution to withdraw from the common fisheries policy and re-establish larger limits for our own fisheries?

Bill Wiggin: Tempting though that proposal might be, that is absolutely not what I am going on to conclude, so I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	We should be seeking to ensure that we can take action to protect our marine environmentaction that can make a real difference and that my opponent, the Fisheries Minister, can say has worked, rather than leaving him blushing and admitting that once again the Government have been thwarted by the EU.

Angus Robertson: What explanation can the hon. Gentleman give for the fact that the fisheries sectors of Norway, Iceland and the Faroe islands are vibrant and successful, while fishing within the European Union is a complete disaster? Why is that the case?

Bill Wiggin: It would be so simple to put that down to the fact that they are single-species fisheries, but I believe that they also manage their fisheries very well. We have a separate set of problems with mixed fisheries such as the North sea. Now I really must hurry on.
	The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says that it has appointed itself the
	UK policy custodian for the marine and aquatic environment,
	committed to delivering
	clean, safe, healthy, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas.
	Well, not any more. How can it be the policy custodian for our seas when the Government are surrendering all powers in this area to Brussels? The Lisbon treaty refers to
	marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy,
	but it is uncertain whether that provision could extend to covering most of the marine environment.
	The Government have already admittedfor example, in the 2004 strategy unit report Net Benefits, and in the discussions over the marine strategy directivethat the present marine management arrangements between the EU and the UK are unclear. However, they have refused to take action to elucidate them. If given exclusive competence, what action could the EU take to protect the pink sea fans in Lyme bay, where there is a conflict between conservationists and scallop dredgers, or to protect the sea bed that is so important to those corals?
	During the marine Bill consultation, more than 90 per cent. of respondents believed that existing measures to protect marine species were not adequate. What a damning indictment of EU and Government policies. This year, the draft marine Bill is expected to be published, but Ministers have already conceded that any marine conservation zones and protected areas implemented under the Bill would have no legal force over vessels with historical fishing rights between our 6 and 12 nautical mile limits. There could be many more occasions like the discussion on the pair trawling ban, when Ministers stroll down to Brussels, make their case and desperately plead with the Commission's pen-pushing bureaucrats, only to have their ambitions torn apart and thrown out, and then return to Britain defeated and without the necessary protection for our marine environment.
	The development of marine spatial plans could be affected by discord between Brussels and the UK. Brussels could also interfere in sea-bed mining and dredging, in the interests of upholding
	the conservation of marine biological resources.
	Before the much-promised marine Bill has even been presented to Parliament in draft form, the Government have already acted to dilute the Bill's contents and benefits by accepting the Lisbon treaty. They have accepted that
	more needs to be done to better manage and protect our seas,
	but they can hardly take decisive action if they need to run off to get permission from Brussels.
	Just 0.001 per cent. of UK seas benefit from the highest level of protection, namely the 3.3 sq km Lundy marine nature reserve. That is an area equivalent to the size of Kensington gardens. Sir David Attenborough has stated:
	As an island nation, I find it astonishing that we have protected less than a thousandth of one per cent of our seas from fishing and all damaging activities.
	It is indeed ridiculous. At present, there are two types of protected marine area for nature conservation. The first are the marine nature reserves, of which there are just threeLundy, Skomer and Strangford loughand the Government have no intention of designating any more. If the plan envisaged in the treaty goes ahead, I doubt that they would be able to do so, either. The second are the European marine sites, of which there are more than 100 in the UK, but they cover a very limited range of habitats, such as
	sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time,
	where fishing, dredging and other activities continue. For example, the Fal estuary, a protected European site, is being damaged by scallop dredging.
	The public want to see more of our seas protected. A survey last year found that 78 per cent. of the public thought the UK's seas were important, and that 94 per cent. rated as important the health of the marine environment. We have to ask why the Government did not use the Lisbon treaty as an opportunity to bring powers back to the UK for environmental benefits, and to strengthen out ability to protect our seas. We need to ensure that our forthcoming marine Bill can actually offer the protection that we all want it to provide.

Michael Connarty: We have heard a number of pleas from the heart about defence policy, for transport and, now, for fishermen. I recently met someone from the former fishing community of Great Yarmouth, who told me that there was now only one boat in the harbour where there used to be a thousand. That should worry us all.
	I welcome the Minister for Europe's earlier response to my questions on subsidiarity and other matters. I do not criticise his caution on the structures of procedures, or on the relationship, involvement and consultation between the House and the other devolved Administrations. That caution signals that it is part of a deep process that is trying to reassess our relationship with the devolved Administrations in the other parts of the UK, and the relationship between the Government in the Council and this Parliament. That reassessment will be beneficial. If that caution is just a smokescreen, however, and this all ends up being rushed through in a way that we cannot influence, I shall be deeply disappointed.
	I am surprised that those on the Opposition Front Bench are expressing so much anxiety about the institutional changes, because the one thing that I would have thought that the Convention required was a change to the institutions. Those changes should be welcomed by the people of the UK and by Members of the House, if only for the simple reason that the European Parliament will now elect a president of the Commission. That in itself is a great innovation. It will involve a parliamentary vote, which is important and the process will be separate from the Council. That means that the presidency will become part of the democratic institutions for which my constituents have been asking for years along the lines of When are we going to have a democratic institution in the European Parliament, and not just the Council and the Commission?
	As for the role of the president of the Council under article 15 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, it is quite clear who the president will be and what he will do. It is equally clear that that person will not be a member of the Commission, but a member of the Council, but I have to say that there is still some mystery about the source of the candidate, because it does not say that a president will be appointed, which suggests someone from outside, but that he will be elected, which suggests someone from inside. It might be someone who is a Prime Minister. If that person then becomes the president does it mean that the country in question will have to find another person to take up the role of Prime Minister? The wording of article 15 remains quite confusing.
	Under the proposed process, the president is elected by the Council through qualified majority voting. It was established through some of our interventions that the presidency will be based in Brussels, whereas the vice-presidencyand the people who will chair the sectoral councils dealing with the business of the departments of governmentwill be taken on by a new country every six months. I welcome that. I was worried at the idea of the entire Council meeting continually in Brussels and being sucked into the machine of the Commission and the bureaucracy. Moving it around will help to engage Parliament after Parliament and Government and after Government, which will maintain a sense of continuity. If that were to be lost, it would indeed be a significant loss for usand not just when it became our turn every 27th time it came roundbecause that change and flexibility affects our ability to engage with people in their Parliaments and influence them as they influence us.
	The European Parliament will be much strengthened by the new arrangements, which must be welcomed. Let us look at part six of the consolidated treaty, particularly articles 223 to 234 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, under which co-decision making becomes the ordinary legislative process. It has got to be a good thing that an elected Parliamentnot necessarily the present one, but one that should have more and more respect and strengthwill have a real say in the final stages of legislation, which will then need to be implemented at the local level. That Parliament will also have extra budgetary powers over both budgetary processes and laws.
	Under article 229, the European Parliament will have the power, on a vote of 25 per cent. of its members, to set up a committee of inquiry. Would not that be a wonderful innovation for our own Parliament if 25 per cent. of Members could set up a special committee of inquiry into how laws are being carried out by Departments of Government? That might well be something to bring back home for use here. The European Parliament is also able to elect a European ombudsman, to whom people can refer cases of EU maladministration, which is another great innovation. Article 234, furthermore, provides for the ability to sack the Commissionnot just the president, but the Commission, separately, on a two-thirds majority. That is very attractive to me, as it moves democracy forward. I would have thought people would welcome that; I had hoped that people would focus on those positive aspects of institutional change.
	We have heard much talk about qualified majority voting and I certainly accept that QMV has been more beneficial to the UK than to any other Government and it will become ever more essential for us to use it to get things through in the face of growing national obstruction to the single market. We will need to use that mechanism again and again. When we have a double majority vote, I do not understand why that cannot be not welcomed throughout the House. It is the case that 55 per cent. of members of the Council, representing at least 65 per cent. of the populations, will be able to vote to carry something on double majority voting. Under article 238, where the Council is not acting on a proposal from the Commissioner or the high representative on foreign affairs, 72 per cent. of the votes under QMV are required before it can be carried. That represents 65 per cent. of the population. All those provisions are very beneficial. Furthermore, 35 per cent. of the populations voting through their representative in Council can act as a blocking minority, which makes me wonder how many safeguards the Opposition want before they realise that such QMV will be beneficial to us.
	I have some concerns about a matter that I have seriously examined, as it has been raised by members of the European Scrutiny Committee, which relates to the aims of EU institutions as provided for in article 13(2). It states:
	The institutions shall practise mutual sincere cooperation.
	That has been cited as if it were some sort of conspiracy. However, if we look at article 13(1), we find that it states, and it is worth reading into the record:
	The Union shall have an institutional framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions.
	I view that as a counter-conspiracy clause, because it stresses that the interests of member states must be at the heart before anything further is added by any other part of the treaty. I would hope that we all commend that.

Mark Francois: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. As usual, he spoke with considerable authority on these matters. He knows that I like to quote him from time to time, particularly when he said on the Today programme of the Government's red lines that they would leak like a sievea very important quote, which bears frequent repetition when we are debating the treaty of Lisbon.
	I will refer briefly to the amateur dramatics that we saw earlier from the Liberal Democrats. They are making great play of this in-out referendum. All I will say, and very briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there was no reference in their manifesto to an in-out referendum; indeed, they argued for a referendum on the EU constitution, so they have no democratic mandate for the stunt that they pulled in the House this afternoon.
	Today's debate has considered some of the core issues of the treaty: the new EU president, the new definition and distribution of the EU's powers, the single legal personality, the abolition of more than 50 vetoes, the expansion of the European Parliament's powers and the ratchet clause. Yet the debate has had a slightly surreal quality because many of the decisions about how the new institutions will work in practice have yet to be taken.
	The House has been asked to discuss and scrutinise what amounts to a pig in a poke. To take one example, the European external action service is one of the most important institutional innovations in the treaty, but we are in ignorance of answers to crucial questions. As one former German ambassador to the EU put it:
	What will be the share of member states
	within the EEAS,
	I don't know. These are all open questions.
	Those are, in fact, vital questions, to which Ministers do not have answers. I think that that is a shame and the fact that the Government have allowed such a position to arise provides an example of how little they care about their duty to be accountable to Parliament, let alone the British people.
	There can be little doubt that, taken as a whole, the treaty is the most fundamental change to the EU's structure since its foundation. The intergovernmental nature of decision making on criminal justice and policing, where direct national democratic accountability is vital, is fully absorbed into the Community system, the Commission having the main right of initiative, co-decision with the European Parliament and full jurisdiction by the European Court of Justice. That is a fundamental change, as the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committeeif he can bear me quoting him twice has previously said. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has also explained, the new president of the European Council will transform the way in which the European Council is run. This process is also an example of how the treaty does not end institutional debate in the EU, but sets new dynamics in train.
	As we repeatedly mention, because it bears repetition, the relationship between the proposed president and the new high representativethe Foreign Minister under another namehas not been worked out. As Brian Crowe, deputy director of Chatham House and former director general for external and politico-military affairs in the Council of the European Union, argued in a recent article and parliamentary brief, the president
	is to represent the EU 'at his or her level', which is one thing for attendance at EU summits with third countries, quite another if (as will always be the temptation for former heads of government who are likely to get the job) he seeks to cut a figure on the world stage competitively with the EU High Representative.
	Who could he have been referring to, we wonder, when he made that comment? It is exactly right.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: He alleged that Angela Merkel had said Of course, it could not be a Briton in charge.

Mark Francois: I think that the former Prime Minister has enough problems wondering whether he can secure the support of the current Prime Minister, let alone the Chancellor of Germany, but the hon. Lady's point has been put firmly on the record.
	One would have thought that after so many years of careful consideration, the new treaty produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe and mulled over numerous time by Europe's Heads of State and Heads of Government would be a seamless web, clear in its outcomes and bringing new rationality to the EU's structures. The fact that, after all that, the document gives us unknown outcomes and inter-institutional strife is surely a strong case for the argument that it is fundamentally flawed.
	In his opening speech, the Minister for Europe claimed that this country's voting weight would increase as a result of the treaty. In purely simple terms that is true, but in practice the country's ability to influence European legislation would be diminished, because it would become harder to form blocking minorities. That is the key point. Of course in some circumstances it could work in our favour, but given the difficulty that the Government have had in holding together a sufficient blocking minority on the working time and agency workers directives, it would be foolish to underestimate the damage that the shrinking of our voting weight might do to our ability to protect vital national interests such as the preservation of a flexible labour market.

Doug Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mark Francois: I am short of time, but I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene briefly.

Doug Henderson: I shall be very brief. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that what he has just said is at the nub of the Conservative position, which is always that Britain should be outside, that Britain is better on its own, and that Britain should not co-operate with others, rather than that Britain should use the new reforms to bring British views into line with those of others and form majorities? As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is the reality in European Council meetings.

Mark Francois: If that is the case, why have the Government been struggling so hard to retain blocking minorities on those two directives? I am afraid that is a question that he has not been able to answer.
	In relation to qualified majority voting, the treaty marks a major shift in the EU's way of working. For the first time, the system whereby the Commission proposes legislation and the Council votes on it in co-decision with the European Parliament becomes, in the words of the treaty, the ordinary legislative procedure. As the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee has also saidI follow his words very closelythe fact that co-decision with the European Parliament under the treaty will now apply in some 95 per cent. of cases represents another fundamental, massive change. He is right, and it is because of such fundamental changes that the treaty has an importance that merits the referendum we were promised.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks referred to the language in which the treaty sets out the EU's competences, which is copied almost word for word from the EU constitution. Let me develop one point further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) observed, it is an innovation for the conservation of marine biological resources to be set out as an exclusive competence in the treaties. Such an entrenchment of case law is, in this instance, an illustration of the failure of what is described as the EU reform treaty to tackle areas in which the EU needs to undertake real reform. So far, the common fisheries policy has been less an area of EU competence than one of EU incompetence. Far from conserving marine biological resourcesor fish, as they are usually called in Englishthe common fisheries policy means that our seas have fewer of them. The direction of policy travel should be the opposite direction.
	Let me end by making some observations about the passerelle or ratchet clauses. We shall have further opportunities to discuss them next week, but the new, almost all-embracing simplified revision procedure marks one of the treaty's most important innovations. I think it is a sign of the draftsmen's intent that it makes it so easy for the EU to get rid of remaining vetoes in this way. It must be a matter of regret that there is no comparable simplified revision procedure to reverse the ratchet. There is such a provision, incidentally, in the new ordinary revision procedure, for which we have the Czech Government to thankwhich I dobut the hurdle is very high. If the House is to exercise any real control over the development of Britain's future in Europe, it is therefore vital for us to have the safeguard that the simplified revision procedure, or ratchet clause, cannot be used without primary legislation. Important Committees of the House have argued for that in examining the treaty, and we support their contention wholeheartedly.
	The treaty does not make the EU more efficient, or improve the quality of decision making. It sets institution against institution, and diminishes the role of member states. It fails to respond to the EU's crisis of the democratic deficitthe crisis which, as those with long memories will recall, the whole treaty process was launched to address at the Laeken European council meeting in December 2001. Throughout that process the Government's approach has been reactive, not proactive, favouring damage limitation over strategic vision. How often the Government have tabled amendments that have been defeated, and then described them to the House as searching questions. Why did they not search further, and insist that those amendments be made?
	Instead of real change, we are offered an intensification of existing centralising tendencies. It is for those reasons that the treaty should be rejected and, ultimately, put to the British people in the referendum that they were so solemnly promised in the first place.

Helen Goodman: We have had an excellent debate on matters that are central to the Lisbon treaty. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), who gave his usual robust performance.
	The aim of the treaty is to reform and streamline the enlarged EU's institutions and decision making. The preamble to the treaty states that the 27 member states drew it up
	to complete the process started by the Treaty of Amsterdam and by the Treaty of Nice with a view to enhancing the efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the Union and to improving the coherence of its action.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) began by speaking to the Conservative amendment, which purports to criticise the expansion of the
	power of EU institutions at Member States' expense.
	That proposition is fundamentally mistaken. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) pointed out, the United Kingdom is stronger in a strong European Union. The United Kingdom can influence global issues for the better as a major player in the Union, and effective decision making in the EU enables us to pursue our agenda in Europe.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks criticised the proposal to introduce a president of the European Council. He suggested that a comparison could be made between that new permanent, or semi-permanent, presidential role and the role of the Prime Minister in this country. Of course, he omitted to refer to some very significant differences. For example, the Prime Minister makes appointments to the rest of the Government, whereas the president of the European Council will be appointed by the Council. Furthermore, the president of the European Council will have no vote when it comes to making decisions in the Council, and will operate on a mandate. There is no discussion in the Lisbon treaty, or in any of the surrounding documentation, of direct elections for the position. The right hon. Gentleman has put up a straw man and knocked him down.
	We were given a far more realistic and positive picture of the president's role by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). They both understood that the role of the full-time president broadly reflects the functions that the presidency already performs. The full-time president will chair the European Council, drive forward its work, ensure its preparation and continuity on the basis of the work of the General Affairs and External Relations Council, and facilitate cohesion and consensus. The current twice-yearly rotation causes problems with continuity, as anyone who has ever been involved with Europe will know.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire asked about the interrelationship between the president of the European Council and the new high representative. The treaty makes it clear that the full-time president will perform his or her representational responsibilities at his or her level, and without prejudice to the powers of the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy. There is provision for two quite distinct roles. The high representative will chair meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council.

Mark Harper: Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

Helen Goodman: No.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks made much of changes that he would have liked to see since 2004.

Mark Harper: I thank the Deputy Leader for giving way. She has referred to many references in the treaty to the various powers and how the institutions work. Has she actually read the treaty in detail?

Helen Goodman: Yes, of course I have.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks made much of changes he would have liked to see since 2004, but he omitted to refer to the successes this Government have had in their negotiations over the last three years, such as in inserting the yellow card and in removing obligations on national Parliaments.
	Many Members have mentioned national Parliaments. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) spoke with the benefit of her long experience and asked why we did not have regular question sessions on European matters. The answer to that was given in the debate we had on European scrutiny three weeks ago, when I explained to the House that we would be perfectly prepared to have questions on European matters in Westminster Hall after every significant European Council [Interruption.]but, as is evidenced to my hon. Friend, Opposition Members rejected that.
	National Parliaments will for the first time have a right to challenge a draft legislative Act if they believe that it does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, and if one third of national Parliaments prepare a reasoned opinion they can raise the yellow card. Under the orange card procedure, if a majority of national Parliaments contest the draft measure, the Commission can maintain, amend or withdraw the proposal; but if it maintains it, the Commission's reasons as well as the reasoned opinions of the objecting Parliaments must be sent to the Council and the European Parliament. Either institution may kill off the measure, by a majority of 55 per cent. of the members of the Council.
	Opposition Members asked what structures would be set up to operate the orange and yellow cards. It will be for Parliament to decide how these powers are exercised. We will work with both Houses to ensure that there is an effective mechanism, and we will also ensure that there is an opportunity for a decision before the Lisbon treaty comes into force. It will probably make most sense if we look at this at the same time as we review the new scrutiny arrangements that we established last month.
	Opposition Members have also not taken account of the other significant powers that national Parliaments get: a specific power to monitor Eurojust and Europol; another specific power to veto Council decisions proposing a move to QMV and co-decision for aspects of family law; and the significant new power for our Parliament, set out in clause 6, which will give Parliament prior control over whether to move to unanimity in any further areas.
	Opposition Members spoke about the move to QMV. The maintenance of unanimityof which Members have made so much this eveningdoes not, of course, apply only to the United Kingdom; it applies to all member states, and with 27 diverse members it is a recipe for dither and delay. Under the new QMV system of double majority voting, not only must 55 per cent. of member states agree, but so must 65 per cent. of the populations represented. That puts larger countries such as the UK in a stronger position. The hon. Member for Rayleigh suggested that it was more difficult for us to achieve a blocking minority. That is absolutely untrue. In addition to the increase in our votes from 8 to 12 per cent., our share of the blocking minority will rise from 32 to 35 per cent.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the hon. Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) spoke of their concerns about the changes in competence. The Lisbon treaty expressly classifies these for the first time. In every case Members raised, the competence was already well established either in earlier treaties or in case law. As the Law Society has said of the five areas where the Commission has exclusive competence:
	None of these is new to the Treaty of Lisbon.
	Our aim is to secure Britain's national interest. Britain is a modern European country, so we do best through having an effective EU. The Lisbon treaty provides the Union with a stable and lasting institutional framework and completes the process of institutional reform. So many issues affecting Britain are global in nature and we can best influence them as a major player in Europe. It is therefore absurd for Opposition Members to argue for weak European institutions. The EU and Britain need this treaty. It allows the EU to move on to focus on issues that truly matter: energy security, climate change, and tackling terrorism and organised crime. The Lisbon treaty will allow us to do that, and I commend the motion to the House.
	 It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [28 January and this day].

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 299.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Main Question put forthwith:
	 The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 168.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House approves the Government's policy towards the Treaty of Lisbon in respect of provisions concerning the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision-making.

Orders of the Day

European Union (Amendment) Bill

Further considered in Committee.

[7th Allotted Day]

(Any selected amendments to clause 2 relating to the effectiveness of the EU institutions and EU decision making)

[Sylvia Heal  in the Chair.]

Clause 2
	  
	Addition to list of treaties

William Cash: I beg to move amendment No. 82, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 1, paragraph 5, inserted Article 3a TEU relating to relations between the Union and Member States; and
	(ii) '.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 83, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 1, paragraph 6, inserted Article 3b TEU relating to the competences of the European Union; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 277, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 27(c) adding a new sentence to Article 16 TEC (TFEU) on a new legal base for the European Union to establish the basic principles and conditions of service of general economic interest; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 121, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 12, new Title and new Articles 2A to 2E TEC (TFEU) relating to categories and areas of European Union competence; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 222, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 12, new Article 2B TEC (TFEU), paragraph 1(d), relating to the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 124, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 17, inserted Article 5a TEC (TFEU) relating to matters to be taken into account in defining and implementing European Union policies and activities; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 131, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraphs 46 to 49, amendments to Articles 32, 36 and 37 TEC (TFEU) relating to agriculture and fisheries; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 225, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding' insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 49(c) 3, amendment to Article 37 TEC (TFEU) relating to the adoption of measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations and on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 38, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 150, inserted Article 176D TEC (TFEU), relating to administrative co-operation; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 186, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 289, replacement Article 308 TEC (TFEU) relating to action within the framework of policies defined in the Treaties where the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 192, page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) the Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality; and
	(ii) '.
	No. 31, page 1, line 13, after second 'to,' insert
	'(i) the categories and areas of EU competence; and
	(ii) '.

William Cash: I am glad to have the opportunity to start the debate. It has already been covered to some extent by our discussions on the general principles. We now have the opportunity to consider the specific questions through amendments. Of course, that is what we should really have been doing all afternoon, but that battle has now been conceded as far as the Government are concerned.
	The meeting in Laeken in December 2001 said, among many other things, that the question at issue was:
	A better division and definition of competence in the European Union.
	The reality is that these arrangements are extending competence, despite what we heard from the Deputy Leader of the House in her winding-up speech, when she seemed to be suggesting that the treaty was simply a repetition of existing competences. That is not the case. I accuse the Government of a form of appeasement in relation to such questions. Despite their objections to those arrangements, which were expressed in the Convention and on a number of occasions, they have allowed the European Union to go ahead after all.
	In reference to the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), I suggested in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) that we needed a list of the provisions. I asked the Minister to give me a list of those matters where the European Union was being given new powers and to demonstrate the extent to which areas were left to our national Parliament and our voters. That is the key question. Of course, he could not answer it; he gave me a few examples, such as defence and foreign policy. However, in terms of the range of matters that are being taken over by the European Union under the treaty and the accumulated functions that have been generated by the secret negotiations, we in this Parliament are increasingly like the smile on the face of the Cheshire cat. Bit by bit, we are vanishing into a vacuum that is being enlarged by the EU.
	The EU is centralising, and I believe that the effect of that, curiously and ironically, will be increased tensions in the EU. That is exactly the opposite of what it is seeking to achieve. It will claim that it is trying to introduce greater harmonisation, greater peace and greater stability as a result of the consolidating functions. I firmly believe that what is happening will generate more tension and less harmony as the member states jostle, through the general elections in their respective countries, to try to maintain the respect of their voters and their electorate, who will demand things that they cannot be given.
	The one thing that the treaty does by centralising and by increasing the exclusive and shared competences is diminish the room within which the respective national Parliaments can legislate. The voters will come up against their Parliament's inability to respond to their wishesthe Parliaments will simply have to turn around and say, We cannot legislate in this field because it has been handed over to the European Union, which, as we know, is remote, bureaucratic and undemocratic. When that happens, the tensions in the member states will tend to increase.
	With the potential for problems with running the economy, an increasing possibility of higher unemployment, the failure of the Lisbon agenda and the difficulties of matching people's aspirationswhich is inconsistent with the Laeken declaration's words about being closer to the citizena vacuum is being created. No one seems to realise that in the pursuit of those abstract ideologies, the seeds of the destruction of the EU are being sown. The people will not stand for it when things go wrong.
	Another problem is that because the acquis is set in concrete and cannot really be amended except through a formula such as that which I shall develop tomorrow in relation to new clauses 8 and 9, which I understand have been selected, there is no way in which the powers can be repatriated unless individual member states are prepared to take unilateral action and to get it right after proper negotiation. I do not believe in unilateral action without discussion or negotiation.
	The parliamentary channel is the only place where these matters are being discussed. I know that as I speak what I am saying is going out live on the parliamentary channel.

Austin Mitchell: You're sending them all to bed.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman says that they can all go to bed; if they wish to do so, let them.
	It would not be a bad idea if those watching the parliamentary channelas they listen, if not to me, then to otherswere to express their views to the authorities, the media and the national newspapers, which are not covering what is going on in the House as it legislates, through the Government's iniquity, to deprive the people of this country of the right to express their views in general elections. That is what is happening, and it is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that when we hear this talk about being closer to citizens and about citizenship, it does not refer to the citizens of the nation state? The treaty compounds the ever-rolling forward programme of giving democratic legitimacy to the citizens' representation through the EU Parliament, thereby bypassing more of their representation through their national Parliaments.

William Cash: I completely agree, and I strongly suggest that viewers of the parliamentary channel write to the BBC to ask that these debates be covered a bit more comprehensively. Similar letters should be sent to the national media, as people are able to hear what is being said tonight only if they tune in to the parliamentary channel. That is how I would get around the block that has been placed on our ability to be heard outside the House by the Government's handling of our timetabling and procedures.

David Drew: May I offer the hon. Gentleman a practical example of how limited our national veto has become? He may think my example is trivial, although it is not trivial to me. I am referring to genetically modified organisms. The views expressed by this House, and by this Government, about whether to accept GMOs are becoming increasingly irrelevant, as all such decisions are taken in Europe. For many people, that is a total negation of their right to object to the introduction of GMOs. It is a perfect example of what he is talking about.

William Cash: It certainly is. In fact, the breadth and depth of Europe's intrusion into the process of decision making that should take place in this House mean that the right to decide about ever more vital matters is being removed from voters. That is the message: whatever people think and do, they will be able to make no real difference to the decisions taken in Europe.
	Moreover, I hope that no one will say in response that everything will be all right because the democratic deficit has been catered for in the Council of Ministers. The use of qualified majority voting and the removal of this House's legislative power through shared or exclusive competences mean that the people are being deprived of their right to be consulted in a meaningful way at general elections.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he was at one time a member of the European Scrutiny Committee with me.

Mark Hendrick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that democratic legitimacy is improving and increasing? Directly elected Members of the European Parliament now have more say about what happens in the EU, as more matters become subject to co-decision. Also, we should accept the principle of subsidiarity. We have common interests in many matters, such as the environment or the single market, both of which apply across Europe. Surely it makes sense to reach common decisions about them.

William Cash: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is merely repeating the theory of subsidiarity. I attended a school very near Preston, where we were taught about subsidiarity as a theological concept. There is a hierarchy in religious matters that cannot be challenged, but the political environment is completely different. In secular matters, the accountability of the central authority should always be challenged. Nothing is ever set in concreteunlike the acquis communautaire, which is the basis of the European legal system. Its supporters believe that it cannot be challenged, although I believe that this Parliament can reverse any decision, and that it must continue to do so.
	The democratic deficit is not filled by generalisations such as those that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) has put forward on behalf of the European Parliament. The system does not work like that, as the European Parliament does not have the necessary power. Moreover, it is implicit in the arrangements that we are discussing this evening that it will not be given that power. As a result, the treaty proposals are neither fish nor fowl, but a hybrid that cannot work. On the one hand, the treaty, by neutering MPs in this House, will take away direct parliamentary representation from the people of this country. On the other hand, however, the European Parliament will not be given the powers that it needs to make up for the loss.

Mark Hendrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

William Cash: I will give way once more, as the hon. Gentleman is the only Labour Member who seems to be taking an interest in what I am saying.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He is talking about co-decisions, but the European Parliament has powers in many areas. That number will grow once the treaty is ratified, with the result that the Council and the Commission will not be able to get proposals through without the support of the directly elected European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman says that the European Parliament has no power, but it was a consultative body in 1979. It is a co-legislative body now, and that is a tremendous step forward in democratic terms.

William Cash: The problem is that it is all part of the process of greater integration, with more centralisation and less democracy. The European Parliament is involved in certain areas of co-decision, but that only serves to lock down and contain member states' national Parliaments. We are in the ridiculous situation of being invited to congratulate the EU on allowing national Parliaments to be involved. General elections take place on a national basis, but the process of making laws is being handed over to the undemocratic procedure that I have set out.
	That is the system in which we are effectively imprisoned. I believe that we should have the guts to make sure that we remedy the problem but, in the absence of a get out of jail card such as I propose in new clauses 8 and 9, which we will debate tomorrow, we will not be able to repatriate effectively the powers that have been taken from us.
	I do not want to go into detail now, as there will be ample opportunity tomorrow, but the real question has to do with how we can ensure that this Chamber is maintained as the centre of gravity of power in our legislative process. The danger is that that power will be exerted by external agencies such as the European Commission, or that it will be expressed through regulation that does not require legislation in this House. Another possibility is that legislative power in Europe will be expressed through directives, which means that we will be left to implement the legislation that is passed in our own fashion.
	As I said in an intervention earlier on my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, the word competence is a euphemism for power. Power is about authority, and governance. I used the word appeasement earlier in respect of the Government's policy, and it applies exactly to what they are doing. They have given in to the systems and fashions of the European Commission and the eurocracy in a way that is nothing short of appeasement.
	The Government did not have to give in. I remember the former Prime Minister saying, Let battle be joined! I think that I had a little to do with his granting of a first referendum, as I had pointed out the constitutional nature of the repeal process that was taking place. The ESC has said that this treaty is substantially the same as the previous constitutional proposals, but the Government have given in at the first whiff of grapeshot and decided that we will not have a referendum on it.
	There has been all sorts of farcical business from the Liberal Democrats today. I was here and I watched it all. They are pumping out press releases all over the media, but they are just absurd. They want a referendum in order to say yesI have never heard such rubbish in all my life! They want a referendum because they are totally committed to the integration process.

David Drew: Just say no!

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman says, Just say no! However, if I were to follow Baroness Thatcher, I would say, No, no, no! That is the point, and the Liberal Democrats have achieved nothing this afternoon other than to make themselves look ridiculous.

Alex Salmond: I was tempted by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Is he aware that in the context of Scottish independence, the Liberal party in Scotland opposes a referendum because it is not in favour of Scottish independence? That seems to sit uneasily with that party's attitude to the European Union.

William Cash: I am always glad to hear from the First Minister. He has a remarkable facility for hitting the nail on the head. He is completely right: the Liberal Democrats look as ridiculous and as divided within their party as they are in their principles. They are a completely absurd bunch of opportunists, and that is all that there is to it.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps now the hon. Gentleman will get back to his amendment, which I am sure he wishes to speak to.

William Cash: I am glad to do so. I have a list of the newly defined shared competences as they are set out under the new regimeunder the new rubric of the European Court of Justice, as extended into this new field. Although the Court has had primacy for some time, its power increases as its functions accumulate. Competence is power. It has not yet been mentioned today, but one of the things on which we need to focus is the asserted primacy of the European Court of Justice in relation to these new and accumulated functions, and the exclusion of national Parliaments, in particular our own, with respect to the shared and the exclusive competences.
	Two things are operating in the same direction, but in a contrary manner: the increase by accumulation in power and judicial authority of the European Court of Justice, and the diminution in power of the national Parliaments, which are in direct proportion to one another. We fall straight between the two. Some of us may recall from our history books Dunning's motion that the power of the Crown
	has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.
	That is exactly what we should say about the European Union, the European Court of Justice and the manner in which the Government are treating this country.
	The shared competences are as follows: the internal market; those aspects of social policy defined in the treaty; economic, social and territorial cohesion; agriculture and fisheries; environment; consumer protection; transport; trans-European networks; energy; area of freedom, security and justice; and common safety concerns in public health matters. Those accumulated functions are eating away at the body politic in this country. Furthermore, article 2A of the treaty says that member states can legislate in any area of the shared competences only to the extent that the European Union has not exercised its competence. That will invert subsidiarity. I must discuss subsidiarity, because it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Preston, who has now left his [ Interruption. ] No, he has moved sideways. He is moving, crabwise, further and further towards the exit.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is making a powerful analysis of how the European Union incrementally seeks more and more shared competences. Is it not also important to examine the areas in which it seeks to establish a bridgehead for future shared competences through future incremental change? One example is that, under the terms of the treatyI understand that this is a new dutyif an independent nation state acts on its own account where the Union has decided not to act, the nation state nevertheless has the duty to consult the Union and other member states on any matter that might affect their interests. In practice, that could mean anything. It is a duty to consult on any subject where an independent nation state acts on its own.

William Cash: Indeed. I do not feel that I am exaggerating when I say that my hon. Friend's contributions to debates on the treaty, as well as to the European Scrutiny Committee, of which he recently became a member, are considerable. His analysis, given patiently day by day from the corner of the Chamber that he occupies, is a tribute to his perspicacity and tenacity. It is only persistence, tenacity and political will that will pull this country back to its rightful and deserved place. We in the Oppositionthis is why I am so delighted as I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), the shadow Minister for Europehave managed so far to increase our sense of uniformity and unity on such central questions. They affect directly, utterly and completely the rights of the people whom we represent in our constituencies.
	This is as great a battle as has ever been fought in the history of this country. There will be those who will try to deny that, but I say this: the repeal of the corn laws in 1846 was no different in kind, because it was about how power in this country was distributed between the rich and the poor. It is no different from the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 or the Act giving women the right to vote in the early 20th century. This is about the status of this House.

Iain Duncan Smith: I should like to draw my hon. Friend back, I hope not too rudely, to his amendments, and to the point about subsidiarity and how it will play out. We discovered back at Maastrichtit has not really changedthat the concept of subsidiarity is completely alien to how we view our democracy. When it was being sold to us by the then Prime Minister, John Major, as a real breakthrough, none of the other countries translated subsidiarity in the same way. It is a peculiar continental concept that says that where power rests with those at the top, they will give back what they like to those down below. In this country, power is supposed to rest with the people, and we are only meant to borrow it. That has made the difference in how that concept has been interpreted. When Labour Members make ludicrous arguments about subsidiarity, they should read the debates; then they would realise that subsidiarity has been used in exactly the same way, and it has done absolutely nothing to return a jot of power to the nation states or the people.

William Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking me back to what I said earlier. He is absolutely right. Subsidiarity is a theological concept, and the European Court of Justice is effectively being given in the political field the kind of doctrine of infallibility that at present is given to the Vatican and the papacy. It cannot be challenged, because there is no appeal except repatriation within the Parliaments. That takes us back to the point that my right hon. Friend made: power must go back to the voter. Similar situations have occurred in the history of this country in which it became necessary, regrettably, for people to take direct action to regain that power. The tensions that the treaty will generate may well prove insurmountable in due course.

Mike Gapes: In the last intervention there was reference to the Maastricht treaty; the hon. Gentleman somehow omitted that treaty in his list of great battles of fundamental importance. Is that because he thinks that it is less significant than the Lisbon treaty, or does he agree with the denunciation that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) made of the former Prime Minister, John Major, and of all those, including his Front-Bench colleagues, who voted for the Maastricht treaty?

William Cash: The only reason why I did not mention Maastricht was modesty, if I may say so. I did not think that it was necessary for me to explain every detail, as I tabled 150 amendments to that treaty. The number of amendments that I have tabled to the Lisbon treaty is of the same order, or a little greater. That is why I find myself leading on this group of amendments. I happen to believe that the Maastricht treaty was one of the critical moments in our history. The BBC recognised that point in a debate that took place reasonably recently. The bottom line is that although Maastricht was enormously important, the treaty that we are considering is even more important; the accumulation of functions since Maastricht has merely demonstrated that we were right at the time. That accumulation is in line with the predictions that we made at the time; that is the point.
	Article F of the treaty of European union says that
	The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member States.
	The Lisbon treaty, too, refers to a respect for
	regional and local self-government.
	That is completely misleading. The Union approach has been to pursue a one-size-fits-all policy, with total disregard for national identities, so the extension of the competences actually works in exactly the reverse manner. Moreover, the treaty says that the Union shall respect nation states'
	essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security.
	In fact, although national security remains the sole responsibility of each member state, the article does not include important state functions such as conducting a foreign and security policy. Police and judicial co-operation will cease to be intergovernmental, and will be placed under the Community method.
	It is very likely that the Union will put forward measures that might jeopardise member states' national security measures. The evidence is contained in the Prm treaty relating to the collection of personal data, which is being implemented into Union law, so there is a kind of convergence. National security is hugely important, but there are indications of an invasion of it by other means. If we agree to the amendment, we will revert to the status quo, and we will therefore get rid of the problem and retain national security at the heart of our arrangements. I shall give that matter further thought as the debate progresses.
	The principle of sincere co-operation is not new. Article 11 of the treaty on European union states that
	The Member States shall support the Union's external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity.
	The treaty operates by reducing in every respect the power of our Parliament, and therefore the rights of our voters.
	The position on subsidiarity is simply this: a series of laws are incorporated in the treaty, and the European institutions' attempt to put a gloss on the matter by suggesting that subsidiarity will resolve the problem and to give so-called power to national Parliaments is a complete con trick. That has not happened to any effect on any occasion that I can think of. Subsidiarity does not work, and there is no intention that it should. It is part and parcel of the artificiality of the arguments that they put forward to try to demonstrate that they are giving some credibility to national Parliaments.
	I turn to competences and the European Court of Justice. As I say, competences are about power and law making. The ECJ is about the interpretation of that law. Let me quote the opinion of the Council legal service of 22 June 2007 on the primacy of European law. I suggest that my Front-Bench colleagues listen to this, although I am sure that they will anyway. The opinion says:
	It results from the case-law of the Court of Justice that primacy of EC law is a cornerstone principle of Community law. According to the Court
	please note that it is According to the Court
	this principle is inherent to the specific nature of the European Community.
	There follows mention of the Costa case of 1964, to which the Minister for Europe referred earlier.
	The opinion of the Council legal service goes on to say that at that time
	there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice.
	The opinion continues:
	It follows . . . that the law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as Community law and without the legal basis of the Community itself being called into question.
	There is only one way to get past that judgment by the Council legal service, which is right in one sense onlythat that is the assertion made by the European institutions within the framework of the competences that they have granted themselves and have been granted, foolishly, by member states. As that is the basis on which they operate, we cannot and must not allow our own Parliament to assume that what they say is right. We must insert a provision, which I will discuss tomorrow, about the preservation of the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament, having regard to the European Communities Act 1972.
	I will not go further down that route this evening, however much I may be tempted to do sowhich I am. Having resisted that temptation, I shall briefly refer to the other amendments that I tabled. I have already dealt with many of the matters in general terms; they include, for example, the fact that Community common policies will take precedence because of exclusive competences that are being granted; the problems that we have with respect to competition rules; the conservation of marine biological resources; and the common commercial policy. I mentioned yesterday the problems that arise in the context of the development of policy. These demonstrate the manner in which the Union will grab and maintain new areas of exclusive competence. These matters are dealt with under my amendment No. 121.
	There is also the matter of the UK Parliament being required legally to submit to the Union if and when the Union acts first. That also arise under amendment No. 121. The United Kingdom would be required to conduct economic policy in the interests of the European Union under instruction of the Councilagain, that is dealt with in amendment No. 121. The European Union seeks to direct policy for British industry, health, education, sport, culture, civil protection and tourism. That, too, is covered by amendment No. 121.
	Then there is the issue of the European Court of Justice and its rulingnot its guidance and interpretation, but its ultimate jurisdiction over the right of the British people to make their choices in general elections. That is what is taken away by giving such enormous power to the European Court of Justice.
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will speak about fisheries policy. There are further issues such as the granting of aid, the common agricultural policy and so on. The bottom line is that we are giving in to the whole of the European Union without

Mark Francois: I hope my hon. Friend will not deny the House an exposition of his amendment No. 186, which seeks to remove something of a Henry VIII clause from the treaty. I have read amendment No. 186 and I have seen article 308, which it seeks to remove. I sensed that my hon. Friend was moving towards a peroration, which we do not want to miss, but before he delivers that with characteristic style, will he explain why he tabled amendment No. 186 and why he considers it important? I shall say something about it in my remarks, but it is his amendment.

William Cash: Article 308 follows a line that goes back to the old article 235. It effectively grants a blank cheque, written by the UK and all the member states, in order to allow the Union to create its own powers beyond the treaties in order to pursue Union objectives, because it states:
	If action by the Union should prove necessary
	that is its judgment
	within the framework of the policies defined by the Treaties
	that is in black and white
	to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties,
	which is something that is a matter of interpretation, usually for the Court,
	and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers
	I ask the question: who is to decide what is necessary and what is not?
	the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the European Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.
	I am not the slightest bit taken in by the word unanimously in this context, because the whole thing becomes a juridical exercise in which what is necessary, what judgments are to be applied and who is to make the decisions, are all matters that will be presented in order to get to the necessary objectives. The bottom line is that this provision will be used, and has already been used, even when the European treaty has not provided the necessary powers. The article has been misused because on several occasions it has been mentioned as the legal base for a proposal that has no connection with the words that were originally used but are no longer in there
	the operation of the Common Market.
	It has been way beyond that over and over again. This is effectively yet another example of a self-amending text. This is the manner in which it intrudes into areas that it would like to be able to grab, which it deems to be necessary, over which we have no control, save only through the European Court of Justice, and the spurious notion of unanimity in this context.

Rob Marris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: No, I will not give way. I have said before that if the hon. Gentleman's constituents had any idea of some of the things that he has been saying he would never be re-elected. He happens to be a good friend of mine in other contexts, but I simply say that he is the successor to Nick Budgen and Enoch Powell, and it astonishes me that he should sit there and say some of the things that he does.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman said over which we have no control. The very part that he read from article 352 on page 195 of the consolidated text refers to the Council acting unanimously and obtaining the consent of the European Parliament. He then went on to say that that could be used for measures over which we had no control. We do have control; it is acting unanimously. I follow carefully what the hon. Gentleman sayshe is very knowledgeablebut he must be careful about the way in which he uses such quotes.

William Cash: I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman's injunction, because that is exactly what I did. I said that in the integrationist pursuit of the objectives set out, the unanimity will give way to the pursuit of those objectives, and that is the legal dynamic that is driving forward this integrationist process, which is at the heart of the problem. There is no tendency to repatriate or to think again; it is always towards more and more integration.
	I simply conclude by saying that the provision will also apply to all third pillar matters on judicial and police co-operation, so that the Lisbon treaty will confirm the existing European Court of Justice encroachment into that area. This is a very important group of amendments. The extension of the competences is related to the power of the European Court, which deprives the British people of the opportunity to change their mind about matters that are incorporated in the treaties, and that is a good reason for our ensuring that we choose to vote on matters that are dealt with in the group.

Mike Gapes: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made a number of interesting remarks at the beginning of his contribution. He talked about the Cheshire cat and appeasement, and reminded me of some of the bonkers e-mails that I have received from people claiming that what we are discussing is all a popish or German plot to rebuild the holy Roman empire. He also reminded me of the Carry On films, in which Kenneth Williams exclaimed, Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me!
	That seems to be the basis of what the hon. Gentleman, given what he has said, clearly believes is now the mainstream, united position of his party. That was confirmed by the interesting intervention from the former leader of his party, my constituency neighbour the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). He pointed out that he and the hon. Gentleman were on the same side, fighting against the iniquities of the Maastricht treaty.
	Despite the position that the hon. Gentleman has put forward, the reality is that the Lisbon treaty contains provisions that make the European Union more democratically accountable and more effective. He is a Europhobe, so I understand why he does not want the EU to be more effective; that is the consistent position of all those who oppose the EU and want it to fail. If it succeeds, support for it will grow, and if it fails, presumably things will be consistent with what he wantsultimately, a withdrawal from the European Union. That is the real agenda that is increasingly being publicly exposed by this debate.

Mark Hendrick: Is it not the case that the amendments are predicated on the supposed illegitimacy of the European Parliament? In fact, it has a great deal of legitimacy; it was John Major who said who and what he felt was illegitimate.

Mike Gapes: I was coming on to the role of democratic institutions. It is important that we recognise that the European Assembly, as was, has evolved since the late 1970s into not a Parliament in a full sense, but a Parliament with more powers than it had 30 years ago. We can raise questions about the legitimacy of that Parliament as long as the turnout at its elections is as low as it is. However, we will be on dangerous territory if we start arguing that too strongly, given that the turnout in our own general elections is as low as the high-50s in percentage terms, as opposed to the 75 or 80 per cent. of 30 or 40 years ago, and that turnout for our local government elections is as low as 25 or 30 per cent. That argument is not strong overall.
	There are important changes in the Lisbon treaty. They are modest and incremental but enhance democratic practice. For example, the treaty will ensure that all European legislation is subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny that exists in no other international organisation. NATO has a parliamentary assembly, of which I have been a member, but it is just an interesting talking shop. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe has a parliamentary assembly; again, that is a talking shop, although it is not as interesting as the NATO one.

Iain Duncan Smith: If my near neighbour does not mind my saying so, his are pointless comparisons. The institutions that he mentions do not have a body of law that exists alongside them. Please, let us stay on the real subject, which is the European Union looked at for itselfnot in comparison with NATO, for God's sake.

Mike Gapes: In the United Nations system, there is, of course, no democratic parliamentary body of a global form. We have the parliamentary network for the World Bank. We have various parliamentary bodies, but they are not real parliaments. The European Parliament is a parliament that has real, and increasing, powers.
	Under the terms of the Lisbon treaty, European legislation will be submitted for a process of dual approval, in equal terms, by the Council, which represents the member states and is composed of Ministers from the democratically elected Governments, who are accountable to their national Parliaments, and by the directly elected Members of the European Parliament, who come from the different political groupings and different countries. It is a dual process of accountability to directly elected Members of the European Parliament and to indirectly appointed Ministers who are indirectly accountable to their national Parliaments. The dilemma for those of us in national Parliaments has always been the inability to get to grips with the accountability of our Ministers when they have gone from our national Parliament to a supernatural bodyI mean supranational [ Interruption. ] It would be if the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green had his way; of course, those who live on other planets do believe the same thing.
	There is a need for much greater accountability, and in many ways we are still grappling with that in our own Parliament. When the Foreign Affairs Committee or the European Scrutiny Committee considers these issues, we are frustrated about how Ministers can be properly accountable to this House in our scrutiny of European legislation and in respect of dealing with these matters when they go to meetings of the Council of Ministers. The situation is not satisfactory at present. The current arrangements do not work well, and we must find ways to improve them.
	The directly elected European Parliament also has an important role. The prior scrutiny of national Parliaments must be reinforced by a change whereby we receive all European legislative proposals directly, in good time, so that we are able to discuss them with Ministers prior to the adoption of common European positions within the EU Council and not, as at the moment, in a rather inadequate way.

Peter Bone: The hon. Gentleman is making another powerful speech in favour of centralisation of the European superstate. Just to make sure that I understand, may I ask whether is he saying that, because the European Parliament is being strengthened, it is all right to take more powers from the national Parliaments?

Mike Gapes: That is the complete opposite of what I am saying. At the moment, power rests with the Commission or the inadequately accountable Council of Ministers. The real question that we have as parliamentarians is how we can make the Commission and the Council of Ministers more accountable to Parliaments in the 27 member states and in the common European Parliament. It is not about centralisation or taking powers away from Parliaments; if anything, it is about taking power away from unelected bureaucrats and civil servants.

James Clappison: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is expressing, but I do not know how he can take it seriously given the experience that he has had as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and that members of the European Scrutiny Committee have had, in trying to scrutinise the negotiations that led up to the treaty as regards our Government and those who were drawing up the constitutional provisions. What does that experience tell us about the real attitude in Europe towards scrutiny by national Parliaments?

Mike Gapes: What it tells us is that last year the German presidency took through a procedure for bringing the draft mandate before the intergovernmental conference, which, as the Foreign Affairs Committee said, was not sufficiently accountable to national Parliaments or to the European Parliament. That process was inadequate; it was not sufficiently transparent, and we said so in our report. That does not in any way negate my point, which concerns the need then, now and in the future for greater parliamentary accountability. The problem with Conservative Members' position is that they want greater parliamentary accountability in theory, but in practice they would remove one of the legs of that process: accountability of the European Parliament.

Mark Hendrick: I would like to add to what my hon. Friend is saying. Directly elected Parliaments, whether we are talking about the House of Commons or the European Parliament, contain the representatives of the people who are closest to the people. In the European Union there is currently a move towards intergovernmentalism, away from powers residing with the Members of Parliament; it applies to Ministers, whether in the Council of Ministers or exercising their rights with commissioners to prevent them from having that power.

Mike Gapes: We also have to deal with what is happening in the Council of Ministers, as my hon. Friend says. First, there is a modest proposal for meeting in public, which will not make a great deal of difference in practice, but it will nevertheless allow national Parliaments and members of the public in all 27 member states to see how Governments work within the Council meetings.
	Secondly, and more importantly, there is the change to qualified majority voting, which will mean a switch to a double-majority system of states and populations. A majority under that system will require a minimum of 55 per cent. of states, representing 65 per cent. of the population of the European Union. That system is much fairer and more beneficial to the United Kingdom. It means that Britain's share of votes will increase from 8.5 per cent. to 12 per cent., but presumably Conservative Members, when they vote against this treaty, will be against that, too. They are voting against an increased share of votes for our country, which seems a perverse logic, but then again, coming from the modern Conservative party, that does not surprise me.

Angela Browning: What about the legal personality? Through qualified majority voting, we can be bound to international treaties that will not even come in front of this Parliament. Where is the accountability in that?

Mike Gapes: The current situation with regard to international treaties is that the Government sign the treaty, and after the event, Parliament is informed that the Government have signed the treaty. We do not have the system that some Scandinavian countries, such as Denmark, have, where Parliament is involved in that process at an earlier stage. I am not sure what the hon. Lady is arguing. Is she happy with the current situation and just wishes to

Angela Browning: This is a treaty, and we are debating it.

Mike Gapes: We are debating the Lisbon treaty, yes, but it has already been signed. If the hon. Lady is saying that the current situation is not satisfactory, I agree. It would be great if the Foreign Affairs Committee and other Select Committees were able to conduct prior scrutiny of international treaties, instead of there being a one-and-a-half-hour debate on a statutory instrument, or some other mechanism under which prior scrutiny does not happen. There are important proposals in the treaty that should be adopted and supported.
	I referred to qualified majority voting, and I shall briefly move on to one or two other areas.
	The annual budgetary procedure will require the Council and the European Parliament to approve all European Union expenditure, which changes the current arrangement, whereby agricultural spending, which has historically accounted for the majority of European Union spending, is ring-fenced and separate. Previously, there was the own resources spending addition and inadequacy in the European Community's dealing with the agricultural spend, but at last, for the first time, we have proper parliamentary accountability for that, which is important.
	The Commission is and has been far more powerful than it will be. A new system of supervision by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will enable either institution to block decisions on delegated legislation to which they object. The treaty gives the European Parliament and the Council the right to revoke the delegation of powers. Again, it restricts the Commission's powers.
	The President of the Commission will be elected on a proposal from the European Council but by the European Parliament, taking into account elections to it. That clearly means greater accountability in the choice of President, whoever that person may be.
	As we know from our previous debates on the foreign policy aspects of the treaty, the high representative for foreign and security policy will be accountable to member states through the Council and, as a member of the Commission, subject to questioning and scrutiny in the European Parliament. Again, that means more accountability and scrutiny than currently exist.
	How do we assess the overall consequences of the proposals? I referred at the beginning to two aspects: more democracy and greater effectiveness. The European Union will become more effective by adopting the Lisbon treaty. I accept that things that Governments, meeting in Council, decide through qualified majority voting will increase. However, in an organisation of 27, including some very small countries, one has to have a mechanism whereby decisions can be made so that the organisation is effective. If we do not do that, Luxembourg could, for example, stop moves to examine specific financial issues in the EU single market. Tobacco producers in Greece could lobby effectively to stop reform of the common agricultural policy. Some countries could prevent measures to increase co-operation on climate change, general environmental policy or energy policy simply because of some small national interest [Interruption.] I refer to a small national interest that would be contrary to the interests of the larger states, including ours.  [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mike Gapes: If the amendment is accepted, the European Union could not act collectively and countries with populations of 60 million, such as the United Kingdom, France and Italy, or 80 million, such as Germany, could not work together to gain the support of the European Union, which could not move forward on economic issues.
	There are safeguards for the foreign policy aspects of the treaty, which have been tackled elsewhere. They are dealt with on an entirely intergovernmental basis. Nevertheless, on the questions of the single market, energy, the environment, dealing with the big global challenges that we in Europe face and [ Interruption. ] Of course, the Europhobes on the Conservative Benches are not interested in these questions. They simply believe that somehow we have to rerun the battle of Agincourt or somewhere else.

William Cash: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. Could the word Europhobe be included in the litany of terms that are regarded as unparliamentary?

The First Deputy Chairman: I ask all hon. Members to remember the common-sense way of debating. Let us have a bit of taste and decency. However, I am not considering extending any lists of unparliamentary language.

Mike Gapes: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stone is so sensitive to the language that I use. I could have called him many other things, but I will not go down that route. I could have called him a pro-European. I could have called him

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that we will not call any hon. Members anything but debate the amendment before us.

Mike Gapes: I take your advice, Mrs. Heal.  [ Interruption. ]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. May we conduct this debate in an orderly manner?

Mike Gapes: The Lisbon treaty does not lead to the centralisation of power or the creation of a superstate, as has been alleged. In fact, it allows the European Union to operate more democratically and more effectively. The treaty allows the European Union to move away from the introspection and navel gazing of the past few years and start to focus on the real agenda, which includes business, efficiency and how to deal with the environment, climate change and the challenges of globalisation.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for giving way, despite the injunctions of others not to take an intervention. He seems to be arguing two contradictory things. At one point he told us that we should be proud that the UK's voting share was increasing, thereby making us more capable of creating a blocking minority. However, he then told us how appalling it was that things would be blocked and that it was important that the EU should become more efficient. Those two positions are opposites, but he has argued them in the same speech.

Mike Gapes: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood, so I will repeat myself for his benefit. The move towards more qualified majority voting in those areas where it is necessary is in our national interest, because that is where we will be in the mainstream and able to secure the reforms that are needed in the European Union to deal with globalisation and the other challenges that we face. However, there are also important safeguards. In those areas where the process is not necessary, such as foreign and defence policy, we retain the entirely intergovernmental decision-making arrangements.
	It is therefore necessary to support the treaty, because it is in our national interests. It gives us an increased share of the vote, reduces the size of the Commission, gets rid of inefficiencies and duplications, gets rid of the External Affairs Commissioner, and replaces two jobs with one in foreign policy. The treaty also means that the way the European Union institutions work is more accountable to both national Parliaments and the European Parliament.

Rob Marris: Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) precisely highlights the differences between the position that my hon. Friend and I hold, and that of many on the Conservative Benches? When we talk about voting and about the United Kingdom going up from 8.5 per cent. to 12 per cent., many Conservative Members immediately think that we are talking about a blocking minority. They take a wholly negative view of the European Union, rather than turning the issue round and asking whether the measure will make it easier for the United Kingdom to build a coalition of other member states under QMV on issues that are in the interests of our country. The EU is not a negative thing, although it is to the Conservatives; it is a positive thing.

Mike Gapes: I agree; my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole tenor of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Stone, who is no longer in his seat, was that it was they who were doing this to us, not that we were part of the European Union. We are part of it, and we must make a big impact within it. Our effectiveness will be judged by how we wish to contribute to the process, not by our opting out or withdrawing from it. The real agenda behind the amendmentsand, no doubt, others to comeis that the Conservatives would rather not be part of the European Union; they want to say, in the words of the hon. Member for Stone, No, no, no. It is unfortunate that we have not had the opportunity to put to the test the Liberal Democrat amendment that was not selected, because it would have been interesting to see whether the Conservatives voted for it. However, we shall not have that opportunitytoday, at least.
	I shall conclude[Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] It is nice to be so popular. I shall conclude by saying that the essence of this debateas with many othersis the fundamental choice of the way forward. The Conservative Front Bench has been captured by what was once an insurrectionist minority [ Interruption. ] The former leader of the party, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is now waving his hands at the back. I remember the debates on Maastricht, and the debates in 1992 and 1993

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman might very well be able to remember themI suspect that many others do, toobut may we now concentrate on the amendment?

Mike Gapes: I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment and vote, as it did on the Maastricht treaty, to support the Lisbon treaty.

Jo Swinson: Perhaps surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who is just coming back to his place, on one issue: I do not believe that we have enough time to debate all the amendments this evening. We have four groups in front of us, so hon. Members will be pleased to know that I intend to keep my remarks fairly short.
	Despite agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on the lack of time for our debate, I cannot support his amendments. I shall not repeat the points that I made in my earlier speech, but I believe that stating the competences of the EU that already exist is an eminently sensible move that will clarify the situation. We might disagree on whether shared competences on energy and other matters are a good thing, but I believe that they are. I will therefore not be able to support the amendment.

Angus Robertson: May we have some clarification on the position of a variety of representatives of the hon. Lady's party who represent coastal communities? Whether MPs or MSPs, in Orkney and Shetland, they are quite happy to traduce the common fisheries policy but, in this House, they are apparently in favour of it. What is the position of the Liberal Democrat party on this policy?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me; I was about to come to marine biological resources, or fish, and to talk about his amendment No. 222. I hope that he will have a chance to put his points on that this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is not here at the moment, but I know that heand, indeed, the relevant Members of the Scottish Parliamentshare many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the common fisheries policy. Indeed, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent coastal constituenciesand landlocked constituencies such as mineshare the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

Angus Robertson: Where are they?

Jo Swinson: We have problems with the common fisheries policy, but the reason we cannot support amendment No. 222 is that, even if it were passed, it would not change the current position. The European Court of Justice ruled in 1979 on marine biological resourcesso in effect the EU already has exclusive competence saying that the
	power to adopt measures relating to the conservation of the resources of the sea has belonged 'fully and definitively' to the community.

Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Lady give way on that?

Jo Swinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman first let me pursue the point further? There would be no change to the current situation, even if the amendment were passed. We want to see change because the current position is inadequate, so we will continue to argue for root and branch reform of the common fisheries policy. Decisions must be made locally, but fish move, so it is sensible to have some co-ordination of fish stocks at the European level. That is not to say that it is impossible to have much more devolved local decision making. I also welcome the new scheme, which means more control over cod stocks in Scotland through conservation credits, which provide a different way forward.

Alex Salmond: I happily accept the endorsement of the wonderful work of the Scottish Fisheries Minister, Richard Lochhead. May I ask the hon. Lady about Elspeth Attwooll, a distinguished Liberal MEP, who on 24 November 2004 supported a motion saying that the Fisheries Committee
	considers that, within the context of the often exclusive competences of the EU which are detailed in the draft Constitution, the inclusion of the conservation of marine biological resources is anomalous and unjustified?
	When did the Liberal Democrats change their mind, and why?

Jo Swinson: The right hon. Gentleman quotes from a European Parliament document issued three years ago, but the Liberal Democrat position is incredibly clear. Exclusive competence is currently set out in EU legislation, and should recognise that, as I have already said, even if his amendment were passed tonight, nothing would change. This is pure political posturing by his party.
	With that, Mrs. Heal, I would now like to let other Members speak, but I am afraid that I will not be able to support these amendments.

Austin Mitchell: It is delightful to rise after the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has roused the House to a sufficient crescendo of excitement to allow me to introduce my amendments, although they have already been denounced in a rather long speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) before I have had the chance to put my case before the Committee. It was effectively argued that to come out of the common fisheries policy is to come out of Europe. That is supposed to be what is really behind the amendment, but what nonsense my hon. Friend spoke.
	I wish to speak to my amendment No. 225, which the cream of the Labour party support. It is designed not to withdraw from Europe, but to add to the exclusions from the treaty of Lisbon, which the Government have decided to accept on common foreign and security policy, the Council's powers on a proposal from the Commission to adopt
	measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations and on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.
	The amendment would remove that provision from the treaty.
	In other words, the amendment knocks down the basis and the worst parts of the common fisheries policy. Those worst parts are seen in the treaty powers on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities. In Europe, of course, they are fixed and allocated by quotas. The North sea and areas around the British coast comprise mixed fisheries where quotas inevitably lead to discards. If a vessel catches a fish that it has no quota for, it simply dumps it back in the sea. It effectively kills it, making no contribution to conservation. It is a ruinous system. The smaller the quotas become, the greater the discards become. It is an automatic process. My amendment would knock out that provision, thus eliminating the discards problem.
	The amendment would also knock out the power to give aid. Although that power has not given much aid to the fishing industry in this country, it has given massive amounts, financed by our contributions, to countries such as Spainenabling it to rebuild and re-equip a fleet that is already far too large, and to use it to fish our waters for our stocks and loot the grounds of developing nationsand Morocco, where the Community buys, with our money, quotas for the Spanish fleet to catch, usually smashing up local boats and ruining local stocks in the process.
	The other powers that the amendment would remove have made the common fisheries policy undoubtedly the worst fisheries policy in the world. I can think of no fisheries policy that is worse than the common fisheries policy, which has decimated stocks all around the British coast, especially in the North sea. It should be struck out. It is amazing how few people want it. I have heard no one support it, apart from the occasional Liberal Democrat. We have just heard one speak in favour of it.

Jo Swinson: rose

Austin Mitchell: Oh, is the hon. Lady not in favour of the common fisheries policy?

Jo Swinson: If the hon. Gentleman checks the record tomorrow, he will see that I was arguing for genuine reform of the common fisheries policy. It is nonsense to suggest that passing an amendment tonight would change the future of fishing in the European Union, but of course we should ensure that decisions are made more locally. A great deal of change is needed; I do not support the policy as it is now.

Austin Mitchell: That raises the question of the Liberal Democrats' proposals for a referendum. Incidentally, if those proposals were applied to Scotland they would require a referendum not on devolution, but on the 1707 treaty of Union. The question to ask about the common fisheries policy is: does the Liberal Democratic party support it, as a whole, or does it not?

Jo Swinson: It needs reform. I do not think I can be clearer than that. We do not think that it is a good idea as it is at present.

Austin Mitchell: There is a word called yes and there is a word called no. Which would the hon. Lady use in this context? Will she tell us? Very well: she cannot tell us whether the Liberal Democrat party supports the common fisheries policy or not. In any event, very few people want it, and only those Liberal Democrats who say yeswhich presumably includes the hon. Ladysupport it.
	All my hon. Friends regard the common fisheries policy as a disaster. They are all embarrassed by it, and they all want to change it. However, they tend to view it as part of the package. If you like Europe, you must like the common fisheries policy. Well, my amendment allows them to dissociate themselves from it and to say We like Europe and we will accept the treaty, but we are going to exclude the common fisheries policy. That is the sensible thing to do. It gives us a real power to choose. It is not necessarily part of the package: it can be taken out, and it would be taken out by my amendment.
	However, I tabled the amendment not just to knock out the faults in the treaty that I have enumerated, but to prevent the coping-stone of the words in the treaty from being incorporated in the arch of the common fisheries policy. I intended to prevent a rather messy, anomalous policy, which no one likes but everyone feels obliged to support for different reasons, from being a requirement of the treaty. If we ratify the treaty unamended, the common fisheries policy will remain as an essential policy, sanctified and upheld by the treaty, from which we cannot deviate. That policy should not be part of the structure. Indeed, it was only fiddled into the structure by means of a very devious approach. There was no fisheries policy in the treaty of Rome, the founding document of the European Unionit simply was not mentioned. That treaty provides for a common market in respect of trade in agricultural products including, it is stated, the products of fisheries, or fish. There is nothing about a policy of controlling catches, regulating quotas and providing aid for vessels, or about what species can or cannot be caught. All that is mentioned is internal trade in fish. That is how the arrangement rested from 1956 until 1970, which is a long time not to have a policy.
	Then Britain entered negotiations to join the Common Market, as did Norway. Those nations had among the richest fishing grounds in the world, and certainly the two richest fishing grounds in the Common Market if they were to enter it. It was therefore thought necessary to cobble together a policy to get access to the fishing grounds of Britain and Norway. Negotiations started in June 1970, and they quickly resulted not in a policy, but in a statement that there should be equal access to a common resource. That was all that there was to the basis of the so-called common fisheries policyjust equal access. European vessels would have equal access to our fishing grounds and those of Norway, and to all our waters.
	That was in fact a negotiating gambit, not a sine qua non, but Edward Heath took it to be compulsory. He thought that that proposal had to be accepted if he was going to get entry to the Common Market, and he was desperate to get entry because he had no other strategy. Therefore, he regarded fisheries in the way set out in the documents in Scotland. I ask the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) to remind me of the phrase.

Alex Salmond: The quote the experienced hon. Gentleman is searching for comes from the civil service. I can paraphrase it fairly accurately. It said that in light of Britain's wider European interests, theythe Scottish fishermenwere expendable.

Austin Mitchell: Expendable: that is what the fishing industry was in 1970. The shameful policy of equal access to a common resource was put together, regardless of the interests of fishing, and particularly those of the inshore fishermen who opposed the whole businessthe distant-water fishermen were making rich catches in Iceland at the time, so they did not care much and were not bothered about European or British waters. Effectively, the interests of the British and Norwegian fishermen were expendable under this system. Therefore, without an attempt to renegotiate it and to say that it could not be part of the treaty, and without an attempt to say we must make other provisions when we extended our territorial limits, the Prime Minister at the time, Edward Heath, shamefully accepted the common fisheries policy. Geoffrey Rippon, then a Minister, told the House that these were just transitional arrangements that automatically ceased at the end of a fixed period. That is what he said. Lady Tweedsmuir in the Lords got it slightly wrong, because she assured the other place that the whole business would be renegotiated in 1892; but although she was 100 years out, she too indicated that it would be renegotiated. On the basis of that, we accepted the common fisheries policy and Ted Heath sold the fishing industry down the river, as the fishing industry saw it at the time and has seen it ever since. Norway did not accept that, and it stayed out for that very reasonit had no intention of being sold down the river.
	As the common fisheries policy was not really a policy at all, it had subsequently to be written into the Maastricht treaty to give it a post hoc legal basis. That was done: an attempt was made to put it on a legal basis by writing it into the treaty. That was then taken further by Giscard D'Estaing's abortive constitution. The British Government had not had the guts or the gumption to challenge its legality. It is clear, however, that the Commission was worried about that legality, which is why it got the policy written into the Maastricht treaty and tried to write it in further in the constitution.
	The constitution stated that it would give the Commission exclusive competence of
	the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy.
	That was an historic first: it was the first time that fish were included in any constitution and it was the first time that marine biological resources, which presumably include seaweed, dolphins and presumably anything that goes into marine areas, were included as a crucial part or arch of a constitution. I suggested at the time that had the provision been written in some of the magnificent language of the American constitution, it would have said, We, the marine biological resources and fish of the Union, regard these truths to be self-evident. We are a common resource and may be caught by any country. That is a basic right for us and for them.
	The wording from the constitution has just been transferred into the treaty of Lisbon; it is almost identical. The Government tell us that it is a treaty and not a constitution. I believe them implicitly to be wrong, because it is de facto a constitutionit defines the way in which the European Union will work. Writing provisions into the treaty is more effective than entrenching them in a constitution, because a constitution with entrenched rights will need some way to dig those rights in and ensure that they cannot suddenly be reversed by a small majority in the House of Commons. That does not need to be done with a treaty because once provisions are in a treaty they are entrenched for ever. They can be modified or removed only by another treaty, which must have the support of 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 or 33 member stateshowever many are in the Union at the time. That approach is more effective than constitutional entrenchment, and it is the one that we are taking if we allow the current words to remain in the treaty of Lisbon.

Alex Salmond: I knew that I was missing something about this placeit was the hon. Gentleman's speeches.

Rob Marris: You are never here to hear them.

Alex Salmond: Well, there are things to do north of the border. So many towns in England are clamouring to join usit is unbelievable.
	The view of the Heath Government in 1971 was that fishing was expendable. Does the hon. Gentleman think that remains the view of those on the Treasury Bench?

Austin Mitchell: I think that the occupants of the Treasury Bench find it difficult to defend the interests of the British fishing industry, because each time a fisheries Minister goes to a negotiation in December, the Government have other fish to fry. They might want a concession on this or to move forward on that, and the fishing industry is always expendable. It is always the area where the Government can make concessions and improve relations with Europe to secure a gain in another direction. That is the sort of process that goes on. Fishing is never regarded as a front-line interest and something to be defended. [Interruption.] Fishing is an important industry that makes a contribution to the national economy, so it is irresponsible of hon. Members to giggle at the mention of fishing as being important. They presumably support the inclusion of fish in the constitution and they then laugh at themthe poor fish. That is a cruel approach to take to a vital national resource.
	If provisions are entrenched in the way that I have described, we would be lumbered for ever with a common fisheries policy that is not working. It has not protected the stocks and it has ruined the British fishing industry, because that industry has never been allowed to rebuild behind its own waters, which should be behind the 200-mile or median line. Every other country has managed to do that. I look at the prosperous industries that have been built up in New Zealand, Norway, Iceland, the United States and Canada. Those are examples of fishing industries that have been rebuilt behind limits, because only nation states have an interest in conserving their own stock to hand on to the next generation of fishermen. They do not want just to loot them as an expendable resource

Rob Marris: rose

Austin Mitchell: My hon. Friend presumably wishes to intervene to tell us that fish do not recognise boundaries.

Rob Marris: No, I merely wished to say that although my hon. Friend has given examples from around the world, and he is much more knowledgeable about them than I am, to suggest that the Canadian industry has been rebuilt behind national boundaries is complete and utter nonsense. I say that as a Canadian citizen. The cod stocks in the Grand Banks collapsed about 15 years ago. They have not been rebuilt and now the west coast salmon industry is about to collapse.

Austin Mitchell: The Canadian fishing industry is making as much money out of catching shellfishincluding crabs and lobstersas it was out of catching fish. My hon. Friend must not attribute the consequences of climate change to a lack of national control over fishing resources

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could now return to the subject of his amendment.

Austin Mitchell: I detoured on to the subject of other fishing grounds.

David Borrow: rose

Austin Mitchell: If my hon. Friend does not want to talk about Canada, I shall give way to him.

David Borrow: At the beginning of my hon. Friend's contribution, he said that his amendments were ones that people who supported the treaty and the European Union could vote for, because they would repatriate powers relating to the common fisheries policy, if we thought that that was important. As a pro-European who is broadly in favour of the treaty, I am somewhat tempted by his argument. I am also aware that were that to happen we would need to renegotiate the treaty to ensure that that clause was included when we approve the treaty, which may happen next year. How confident is my hon. Friend that other member states would go along with that?

Austin Mitchell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support, although I am doubtful about his querulous fears about what would ensue if my amendments were passed. They would just delete the common fisheries policy. We would be saying that that was no longer a central policy of the European Union, no longer part of the constitution and no longer an issue that has to be dictated from Brussels. We would be saying that we could replace it with either a national policy, which I would prefer, or with agreements between the coastal states that actually fish in the waters concerned, rather than allowing a whole host of vessels in from areas that have no interest in those waters except catching the fish and getting it home as quickly as possible.
	The amendments would open the way to change, and should therefore have wider support. Certainly the common fisheries policy has prevented the British fishing industry from rebuilding in the way in which it would logically have done after it lost Iceland's watersby concentrating on our own territorial waters and rebuilding fishing there. At the moment we cannot do that because our waters are open to access by other vessels. Only the nation state has the interest in its own territorial waters, but we could come to agreements with other states on exchanges of catches or quotas. The point is that we would decide our own policy, instead of having it imposed by agreements from Brussels that involve other nations with no interest in fishing or in our fishing stocks. That would also contribute to a more sensible common fisheries policy.
	We all want to see the European Union widened. I want to see it become wider and shallower, not wider and deeper. It would be desirable, for example, to bring in countries such as Iceland and Norway. We could never bring those countries into the European Union at the moment because fishing is crucial to themfar more crucial than it is to us. They cannot allow access to their fishing grounds on the scale that would be required by the Common Market and by Europe. That stopped the Norwegians from entering in 1972 and stopped them from adhering in a subsequent referendum. It certainly keeps out Iceland. There can be no way of broadening Europe by bringing in those nations as long as we keep the common fisheries policy, because that would mean that every country would want access to those nations' fishing resources. They would be insane to allow that.
	Let me conclude by pointing out that the policy has not worked and is not working. It is time for us to end it, and amendment No. 225 provides us with the opportunity to do so. I hope for a vote, although of course that is at your discretion, Mrs. Heal. My tellers are ready, my troops are armed and I think that the amendment is a rather better way of dealing with the issue than amendment No. 222. I hope that we can have a vote on it.

Bill Wiggin: I rise to support amendment No. 222. Ministers and bureaucrats in Brussels may well argue that the treaty is merely putting into words what is happening in practice. Indeed, we heard that from the Deputy Leader of the House when she summed up earlier. In previous written answers about the constitution, Ministers have stated:
	Existing Community competence over marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy derives from article 102 of the UK treaty of accession.[ Official Report, 2 March 2005; Vol. 431, c. 1159W.]
	No other treaty is this explicit, however, about taking away member states' powers over their marine environment and biological resources. It is certainly not that clear or explicit in article 102 of the accession treaty, which states:
	the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, shall determine conditions for fishing with a view to ensuring protection of the fishing grounds and conservation of the biological resources of the sea.
	I recognise that the legal arguments on the extent to which the article divides responsibility for fisheries between Europe and the UK have been raging for years. However, instead of taking the opportunity to clarify the arrangements and set clear red lines, enshrined in a treaty, the Government have stood back and are letting it slip away. Action to defend British interests could have been taken earlier, because the dangers had been recognised by the European Parliament, scientists and Labour MPs. Even the Government expressed concern over exclusive competence.
	When pressed in the European Scrutiny Committee by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on whether the UK Government were happy to see marine resources as an exclusive competence of the EU, the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), stated:
	No, we are looking at this.
	Perhaps his mum wrote that bit; I do not know. Brussels tried to take more powers from the nation state in the marine strategy directive. During the European Standing Committee debate on that subject two years ago, the former Minister responsible, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), said:
	One thing that we are worried about, as I have said, is that the draft directive appears to be a power grab by the Commission in terms of competences and what could or could not be done. That is completely unacceptable.[ Official Report, European Standing Committee, 14 February 2006; c. 7.]
	In the Lisbon Treaty, however, the Government are prepared to hand over, perhaps once and for all, exclusive competence over our marine biological resources. That is widely regarded as unnecessary and will not bring benefits to our marine environment.
	The European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries has dismissed the proposed power grab, voting against it, stating:
	within the context of the other exclusive competencies of the EU which are detailed in the draft Constitution, the inclusion of the conservation of marine biological resources is anomalous and unjustified.
	I think that the quotation given earlier was the same, and it is very helpful. The committee expressed further concern
	at the attribution of exclusive competence for the 'conservation of marine biological resources' under Article 12 of the 'constitutional treaty'...since it will tend to marginalise the competence of national and regional authorities which have in the past succeeded in preserving resources which are now under threat and whose protection is sought.
	We also hear Ministers talk about taking a science-based approach to the marine environment, but that can have no credibility when they ignore the Royal Society of Edinburgh's recommendation that
	Ministers should reconsider their position over the EU exclusive competence for the conservation of marine biological resources, with a view to getting this deleted from the proposed EU constitution so that the principle of subsidiarity may apply to fisheries, as it does to other matters.
	The same report also recommended that Ministers should endeavour
	to have the existing 12-mile limits made permanent instead of being subject to renewal every ten years.
	That is something that the Lisbon treaty would put in jeopardy.
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) chairs Labour's Euro-Safeguards campaign. In an article in his weblog, he notes the change from common fisheries policy to exclusive competence over the
	marine biological resources of the sea.
	He goes on:
	We are told that most of the Constitution is already in earlier treaties. Much isn't and it also builds new powers on the back of earlier provisions...These and many other major changes are being presented as tinkering and 'tidying up', too unimportant for Parliament to discuss. This legislative confidence trick is unworthy of a government which should listen to the views of Parliament and people and allow full and free debate in Parliament before any referendum or surrender of parliamentary sovereignty or British laws and freedom. You can't win wholehearted consent by confidence tricks, half truths and closing down debate.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have read his articles in  The House Magazine, and I hope that I have not got him in trouble with Tommy the Whip or his wifewhoever he is more frightened of. However, I liked what he said earlier, and I apologise if I have got him into a pickle. He is right to say that we should co-operate with our European partners in improving the overall health of the marine environment and fish stocks, when possiblebut the provisions in the treaty, left unamended and in their entirety, go much further.
	When the Environment Secretary was asked in a written question what the effect of the proposed change would be, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), decided to defer the answer to a later date. If there is to be no change, or if the proposed changes were merely tidying-up exercises, why are Ministers unable to respond to what is essentially a straightforward question?
	We need clarification of the responsibilities of the nation state and the European Union. The provisions in the treaty do not do that; instead, they potentially leave the door open to further powers being slowly sucked away from Britain by directives, regulations, European judges, and stealth.
	One of the biggest problems with the EU and the CFP has been discarding, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby noted earlier. Under the strict total allowable catch regime, it is estimated that between 40 and 60 per cent. of fish caught are thrown back into the sea, dead. Discard rates for the UK fisheries are high. The discard rate for North sea cod caught by English and Welsh vessels in the North sea stood at 43.8 per cent. in the last three months of 2006. Between April and June 2006, 42.2 per cent. of west of Scotland haddock was discarded by Scottish vessels. In total, 62.7 per cent. of west of Scotland saithe and 83.5 per cent. of west of Scotland whiting were discarded by Scottish vessels between July and September 2006. That means that a total of 246.3 tonnes of fish were discarded, but only 48.6 tonnes were landedor that about 5 tonnes of fish were discarded for every tonne landed. That cannot go on.
	Such data are collected and sent to the Commission by this country, but other countries, notably France and Spain, do not provide the necessary information. Moreover, the European Commission does not appear to be taking action against those countries, and its discard atlas appears to have been kicked into the long grass.
	So what is the point of the EU wanting to give itself exclusive competence over
	the conservation of marine biological resources under the Common Fisheries Policy
	when it is not taking adequate responsibility for its existing powers and authority? Europe has got to get to grips with tackling discarding: under this treaty, that position will not change, and it could be made worse.
	Nor will this treaty guarantee greater fairness for our fishermen. For example, we have seen the Commission penalise British crews for over-fishing herring and mackerel, and subsequently they have had to pay back the extra fish over five years. Yet the French over-fished bluefin tunawhich is an endangered speciesby 40 per cent. in 2005 and by 30 per cent. in 2006, and the Commission did nothing except waive EU penalties and negotiate an international amnesty.
	That is not providing adequate protection to marine biological resources. The opportunity to improve the management of fish stocks and the marine environment has been wasted. More powers will go to Brussels; it is enshrined in the treaty. The Government have ignored the Opposition, Labour MPs, the European Parliament and scientists. Our marine environment is not in safe hands. The provisions will do nothing to improve the situation. Therefore, we should accept the amendment.

Mark Hendrick: I oppose amendment No. 82, as it is certainly clear from many speeches made by Opposition Members that the role of this amendment and indeed many others is to block the competences introduced by the Lisbon treaty. Today the President of the European Parliament starts his official visit to the United Kingdom. As a former MEP and someone who is proud of this Parliament, I take great exception to many of the comments made by Opposition Members regarding the legitimacy of the directly elected European Parliament in both its current and its proposed form, which would include many improvements made by the Lisbon treaty.
	At the moment, the European Parliament has 785 directly elected Members. That figure will be made more manageable for a European Union of 27 member states by being reduced to 751. Limitations will be made at the bottom endno country will have fewer than six MEPsas well as at the top end: no member state will have more than 96. That will make the European Parliament much more effective than it is and, given the other changes, which I shall mention shortly, much more legitimate in the eyes of the European peoples.

Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Hans-Gert Pttering told the Council of Europe last year that the constitutional treaty before us is virtually the same as the constitution rejected by France and Holland?

Mark Hendrick: I thank my neighbour from Ribble Valley for that contribution. I will be having lunch with Hans-Gert Pttering tomorrow. Although many of the things that were in the constitutional treaty are in the reform treaty, a good deal are not.

Nigel Evans: They are virtually the same.

Mark Hendrick: Well, they say that the DNA of certain species is very similar to that of human beings, but that does not make those species human.
	The UK will gain one extra MEP, making a total of 73. Although we currently have 78, that number would have fallen under the terms of the Nice treaty to 72. In terms of representation in the European Parliament, Britain will have more under the new treaty than it would have had otherwise. That is a gain and a good achievement for the United Kingdom.
	To bring about the extra legitimacy warranted by the European Parliament, the new treaty will extend democratic accountability by making co-decision the standard legislative procedure; it has been renamed the ordinary legislative procedure. Co-decision, which will give the European Parliament the same power in certain competences as the Council, was introduced by the Maastricht treaty with the support of many official Opposition Members and of Mrs. Thatcher. I wonder what Mrs. Thatcher would think if she were in the Chamber today, given the contributions of many Opposition Members.

Nigel Evans: rose

Mark Hendrick: No, I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived at this debate, and many of us have been here for hours.
	Co-decision will not be extended everywhere. As many Members have pointed out, the key policy areas requiring national control and national Governmenttypically foreign and defence policywill remain in national hands. In addition, co-decision will not affect the ability of the Commission, acting with member states in the Council, to provide protection from threats to animal or human health. I am confident that co-decision will not block common agricultural policy reform and common fisheries policy reform, despite the many comments that we have heard, particularly from nationalists and from one or two Labour Members.
	Overall, the treaty will expand member states' influence by giving them greater say over all parts of the EU budget. When I served in the European Parliament, we had no control whatever over agricultural spending, but the Lisbon treaty will introduce that innovation.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend spoke about having more control over the budget. Is there anything in this treaty-cum-constitution that will in any way lead to the European Union having its accounts signed off properly?

Mark Hendrick: There is nothing to stop those accounts being signed off properly now. It is just that the will to sign them off is not there among the auditors responsible.

Peter Bone: As a chartered accountant, I declare an interest. The suggestion that an accountant would sign off accounts when they knew them to be fraudulent is quite preposterous.

Mark Hendrick: I am sure that many Government members and MEPs would say that, in a good many cases, the reason why accounts are not signed off is not fraud but because the level of detail and the care with which many of the budget lines are spent.
	The Lisbon treaty will mean that all EU legislation will be subject to a level of parliamentary scrutiny not seen before. I have visited a number of legislatures in the European Union, and apart from the Danish legislaturethe Folketingthe European Scrutiny Committee here in the House of Commons is probably one of the best means of providing that scrutiny. Under the Lisbon treaty, the Commission will give us sight of proposed legislation for national Parliaments, the European Parliament and the Council long before our Ministers go to Europe and do deals, contrary to what happened in the past. I am a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee, and there have been times when I have questioned members of my Government on the stance and positions that they took. The introduction of the new procedures will allow national parliamentarians to do that with much more ease, as they will be aware of proposed legislation much earlier.
	Democratic control and the exercise of delegated legislation powers by the Commission will be reinforced through a new system of supervision by the European Parliament and the Council. That will enable either of them to block decisions on delegated legislation. That cannot happen at the moment. The Commission can, through delegated legislation, take many decisions that cannot be stopped by the Council or the European Parliament. The treaty will change that situation for the first time.
	MEPs will be given separate votes to approve the President of the European Commission and the college of Commissioners. The European Council, in nominating a Commission president, must strongly take into account the position of the European Parliament, which is a directly elected body.
	On reform, after the 2009 European elections there will be a new MEPs' statute. The statute will reform salaries, providing a standard base across the Union. The standard MEP's salary across Europe will not affect the UK tax system. That will ensure that UK MEPs' net salaries remain equivalent to UK MPs' salaries. The question is whether the new budgetary procedure will enhance Parliament's say on spending. Will it block the budget review? Will it put the UK's rebate at risk? The treaty will expand member states' influence by giving them a greater say on all parts of the budget. Again, that is a move away from intergovernmentalism to give member states more say, as their Parliaments will be able to speak out much more loudly on the budget. It will also enhance member states' say on the overall size of the EU annual budget.
	The distinction will be removed between compulsory expenditureI have already mentioned agricultural spendingand other areas of expenditure over which the European Parliament has the final say and which is the larger and increasing share of total EU expenditure for example, expenditure in relation to structural funds, from which my region has benefited greatly. The ceilings on EU expenditure are set by the seven-year financial perspectives. Those multi-annual financial frameworks will continue to be decided strictly by unanimity in the Council.
	The Council, not just the European Parliament, will take decisions on all subjects covered by the budget review. There can be no changes to the UK's budget abatement without the UK's agreement. The Lisbon treaty will not change that.
	We have gone from being a European Parliament that was composed initially of appointed Members on a purely consultative basis to a modern electronic Parliament which, as a result of the treaty, is a legislature that can flex its muscles and which, in many more areas, carries weight equal to that of the Council. We are seeing the development of a Parliament that Europe can be proud of.
	I am proud to be a Member of the House, and I was proud to be a Member of the European Parliament. Having both those Parliaments working well and parliamentarians working hard for the constituents whom they represent is important in bringing power and law-making closer to the people. I see the treaty as a genuine development which moves away from intergovernmentalism and gives the people of Europe more say over the things that affect them.

Angus Robertson: I am delighted to speak to amendment No. 222 in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and to signal that if we have the opportunity we will press it to a Division. We are delighted to have received indications of support from across the House, not least from the official Opposition.
	I shall speak in a moment about the matter of concern, the exclusive competence of the European Union in relation to marine and biological resources, which has already been raised, but by way of introduction I should like to make a point that is very important to me. I take part in the debate not as a Eurosceptic, but as somebody who supports the European Union. I believe that it is an important institution. In a time of extraordinary change on our continent, it is vital that we live in peace, with security, open borders, open markets and hope for so many, in particular for the new nations of central and eastern Europe. Independence in Europe is the norm for most nations. It is the preferred model to share sovereignty where that is essential, but retain important decision-making powers at home for vital areas.
	I speak as a friend of the European Union to point out that when there are gross failings, they need to be addressed. The greatest failure of the European Union is the common fisheries policy. That is not just a Scottish issue. We heard an impassioned contribution from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The policy impacts on the English fleet, the Northern Irish fleet and the Scottish fleet. We on the Scottish National party Benches appreciate that the anger about the policy is felt in all coastal communities.
	Amendment No. 222 gets to the root of the problem, which is the exclusive competence that is ascribed to the CFP in the treaty. It is exactly the same wording as was to be found in the draft constitution. There has not been a single change.
	It should be obvious why this matter is of such importance to Scottish nationalist Members, Scotland being one of the great maritime nations of Europe with over 11,000 km of coastline and 70 per cent. of its population living within 10 km of the sea.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is it not unacceptable that a large number of landlocked nations with no interest at all in maritime affairs, with no fishing, vote on matters concerning the fish that swim round our shores?

Angus Robertson: Nations such as Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and others may have had intermittent maritime histories, but they certainly have none now, and the notion that their Agriculture Ministersthey do not even have Fisheries Ministersturn up at Council of Ministers meetings and have more say over the Scottish fishing industry than my right hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the First Minister of Scotland, who has responsibilities for fishing in Scotland, shows what nonsense the CFP is.
	I return to the importance of this industry. I may have misinterpreted the laughter earlier, but this is a serious issue for coastal communities. It is about the existence of towns, jobs, their lifeblood, just as it was for those towns that suffered during the miners' strike when people were faced with the closure of their pits and were looking into the black hole of their future. It needs to be understood in urban centres that that is why the CFP is such a controversial policy, and one that needs to be addressed.
	More than 5,000 fishermen are employed around the coast of Scotland, and for every job at sea there are an estimated five more fisheries-dependent jobs onshore. In 2006, 390 million-worth of fish was landed in Scotland, two thirds of the UK total, and Scotland accounts for 70 per cent. of all fish landings into the UK. Ironically, when the Council of Ministers discusses these fisheries, the UK Minister who represents only 30 per cent. of the industry has the lead role over the Scottish Minister who represents 70 per cent. of the industryanother anomalous situation that is unsustainable.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is it not unacceptable that fish taken out of what were British fishing waters by foreign fleets amount to a net loss of 2.5 billion to our economy every year?

Angus Robertson: The UK Government are happy to have that situation based on case law enshrined in the treaty, and they would have accepted it as the status quo in the previous draft constitution. That is completely unacceptable. I note with interest that recently the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation maintained that fish stocks are best managed not through intergovernmental organisations such as the EU, but through exercising national jurisdiction over natural resources, and further warned that at an international level, governance arrangements are inadequate and do not result in effective management of fisheries.
	Amelioration is possible. My friend who represents the same constituency as me in the Scottish Parliament, Richard Lochhead, the Scottish Fisheries Minister, has worked hard to seek changes within the present set-up. It is a tremendous improvement on the previous regime, as was recognised by the European Parliament, which adopted a report that praised the SNP Scottish Government for implementing sensible measures to conserve fish stocks and encouraged other member states to follow the Scottish scheme. Therefore it is possible to make improvements, but we need a quantum leap in approach to this policy, not the smaller managerial steps that are possible with the CFP as constituted.
	The UK Government support a policy that allows literally millions of perfectly edible healthy fish to be thrown overboard, and that is outrageousnot that we have heard anything from those on the Treasury Bench about how advantageous it is. Throughout all these days of debate in this House, not once has anybody from the Treasury Bench got up to say how great a policy it is. Of course they cannotit is indefensible.

Frank Field: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes, will he comment on the loss of not only the stocks that are thrown back, but our sovereignty over the whole of our fishing stocks? They used to provide important nutritious meals to poorer people in this country, but their relative price has changed so much that they are now not on the menu.

Angus Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which underlines the fact that this unsustainable policy needs to be addressed seriously. Yet nothing seems to have been done.
	The relative positions of the fishing industries in neighbouring countries have been mentioned a number of times in interventions and speeches. Why are the fisheries of Norway, Iceland and the Faroe islands infinitely more successful and sustainable than the situation within the EU? If the CFP was such a good thing, surely the Norwegians, the Icelanders and the Faroese would be queuing up to join because of that. Not in a month of Sundays will they do so, because they know that that would mean the end for their fishing industries.

William Cash: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the question of salmon fishing in tidal waters, for example? Although the issue may seem to be outside the territorial boundaries of a particular part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, is it not possible that Scottish salmon fishing could be at risk under the proposals?

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point; I hope that he will join us in the Lobby tonight, if we are able to press amendment No. 222 to a Division.
	I was trying to make a point about the fisheries industries in neighbouring countries. Why in the past 10 to 15 years, during which extraordinary pain has been felt among the fishing fleets of the United Kingdom, have we seen an increase in the power and tonnage of the fishing fleets of those other countries? We are told that fish do not respect borders. That is very interestingof course they do not. Why, then, are the fisheries policies of those neighbouring countries infinitely more successful than those within the European Union?
	In preparing for this debate, I looked at some interesting correspondence that I received a few short years ago from the Prime Minister of the Faroes. He wrote:
	You are certainly correct in your assessment of the Faroese position on membership of the EU in relation to the Common Fisheries Policy. Indeed fisheries are of such overwhelming importance to our entire nation that membership of the European Union was unanimously rejected by the Faroese Parliament in 1974, and has not been on the political agenda since.
	If the people of Norway, Iceland and the Faroes wanted to join the European Union, I would like the idea that they could. However, unfortunately the UK Government have signed up to a treaty enshrining fisheries as an exclusive competence, and that will make it impossible for those neighbouring nations ever to join. That is a travesty.
	Let us consider how the issue has progressed. I would like to point out certain important realities for the record. The Scottish National party's position on this point, and others, has been consistent through the whole process of first the draft constitution and now the treaty. My friend Professor Sir Neil MacCormick, former MEP, was the only democratically elected member on the Convention that drew up the constitution. He raised the problems with the draft as it was emerging. The problems were reiterated in the Standing Committee on the Convention on the Future of Europe debates that brought together Members from the House of Commons and those from the other place. They were raised repeatedly. They were raised in the European Scrutiny Committee and in meetings that my right hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and I had with the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
	The UK Government have known that the issue is a red-line one for the Scottish Government. Despite that, they have ignored it from day one. The consequences are that the treaty is unacceptable. As a pro-European, I could live with 95 per cent. of the treaty as it stands. However, because this issue has been pointed out from day one and because the UK Government could have sought an amendment but did nothing, the treaty has been made completely and utterly unacceptable.

Si�n Simon: The hon. Gentleman started off by telling us what a good European he is, but he will have noticed throughout his remarks, which are very impassioned and some of which I do not disagree withI am not sure that if I represented a coastal community I would be keen on the common fisheries policy eitherthat all his friends in the Chamber are very strongly not friends of the European Union; indeed, they are very bad enemies of the European Union. The bottom line is that he cannot have it both wayshe cannot have the amendment and the treaty.

Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman does not have the benefit of eyes in the back of his head, which would enable him to see his colleagues on the Labour Benches agreeing with our criticisms of the common fisheries policy. That applies not only to Labour Members in this House but to socialists in the European Parliament, not least in the Fisheries Committee, where there was a vote of 23 to zerothere were four abstentions but no votes againstsaying that exclusive competence over fisheries is a bad thing. That is exactly what the SNP amendment would expunge.
	As the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) said, the Royal Society of Edinburgh has sought to encourage us to delete exclusive competencesand not just the Royal Society of Edinburgh, august as it is. All hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies were contacted over the weekend by the Fishermen's Association Ltd, which said:
	We urge you to stand up in the national interest for our fishing industry and fishing communities.
	While we were disappointed that the UK Government did not make this a red line issue at the time of negotiating the Lisbon Treaty, it is not too late.
	It then asks hon. Members to support the SNP amendment.
	The common fisheries policy is a failed policy. Discards are obscene. The idea that communities are horse-traded in the middle of the night at annual Brussels negotiations is completely unacceptable. The UK Government have failed to address the issue and failed to listen to the Scottish Government. For them, fishing is still expendable. A Conservative Government made a mistake in the early 1970s that a Labour Government are repeating now. That is why we will seek to press the amendment to the vote. Members of all parties in this House stood on manifesto or policy commitments to let the people decide on the treaty, and that is what should happen. The SNP has supported a referendum from day one, not least because of the disastrous common fisheries policy.

Rob Marris: I do not know a great deal about fisheries

Christopher Chope: Sit down, then.

Rob Marris: If the hon. Gentleman had been here from the start, he would know that there are about 12 amendments before us, only two of which deal with fisheries, so there are other things to talk about.
	Nevertheless, what I would say about fisheries is that it is clear that the current policy is not working. It is clear to my constituents, I think, that part of the reason why it is not working is the presence of foreign vessels in UK waters, which, as far as I know, bought quotas from UK fishermen. It is also clear that when the United Kingdom discusses the common fisheries policy in the European Union, it is often the case, as is reported, that the UK is asking for higher quotas than the EU thinks are applicable to preserve fish stocks in UK waters. That suggests to me that fish might be better off with the European Union, because stocks continue to decline in UK waters.
	The treaty will help to improve scrutiny of European Union legislation in this place. We need to go further in our scrutiny of legislation from the EU that may be implemented in domestic law. I am pleased to hear that the Government are making progress in that regard, and I hope that further progress can be made. I served on a Committee scrutinising European legislationI cannot remember which one. The Minister was on it; he may remember; he was a very able Whip then. We served on Committee A or B for about two years, which conducted ex post facto scrutiny, and it was always an all-or-nothing affair. We need to improve decision making in this House, as the representative of this country in terms of the European Union.
	Some hon. Members will know that I have been here for the majority of every day's debate on this Bill. This is my eighth day considering it, including the time spent on the business motion, which was thrilling. Looking at the aspects of the European Union brought into focus by the treaty, it has become apparent that quite a lot of Members in this Housethey are mostly but not exclusively confined to the Conservative Benchesseem to see, given the tenor of what they say, a conspiracy by some of the other 26 member states to boss around the UK and tell us what to do. They seem to see the provisions in this treaty, and our relationship with other member states in the European Union and with the Union itself, as a one-way street.  [ Interruption. ] Indeed, someone says from a sedentary position that it is.
	I think that those Members are profoundly wrong. With regard to the single market, it is not just a question of nasty foreigners coming over here, selling their goods and services and blocking us out. The provisions in this treaty and elsewhere enable UK business to have better access to 26 other markets in the EU. It is a two-way street in that regard.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend talks about a two-way street. The fact is that we have a gigantic trade deficit with the rest of the European Union. We import everything from it, and it imports very little from us. It might take a bit of fish.

Rob Marris: Hyperbole does not help my hon. Friend's case. Yes, there is a deficit, but to say that the EU imports nothing from us is quite frankly ridiculous, given the figures.
	This is a two-way street, but the attitude I describe has become apparent not only with regard to the single market, to which my hon. Friend refers, but to energy. When we debated energy, the tenor of several Conservative Members' contributions concerning emergency energy provisions was that those nasty foreigners would come here and nick our energy supplies. The idea that we might need help from other states with our energy supplies in the United Kingdomperhaps because the interconnector went downdid not occur to them and they would not accept that possibility when it was pointed out by others and myself in that debate. It was all a one-way street.

Desmond Swayne: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the amendments concern the institutional arrangements. In that respect, we are talking about a one-way street, on the basis of the occupied fieldthe acquis. It cannot but be a one-way street.

Rob Marris: One of the key things we are discussing with regard to the amendments is competenceswho does what. That brings to light our role in the European Union, whether we should be in it and what we should be doing.
	It was clearly apparent when we discussed criminal measures that some Members felt that there was a one-way street. When I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that his constituents might get into difficulty with the criminal law in another member state and that minimum standards provided for under this treaty and the competences specified therein might therefore be a good thing for his constituents, the flavour of his reply was that his constituents would not be travelling to the continent and would never get into criminal trouble there.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents my response. My point was this: why should I give up 100 per cent. of the powers to represent the interests of my constituents in my own country in exchange for a residual and hopeful right to influence some laws affecting those of my constituents who might travel to the continent? That is a very bad deal.

Rob Marris: That is a bad piece of hyperbole. Giving up 100 per cent. of rights on the one hand and possibly gaining some rights on the other is not the position. The right hon. Gentleman's constituents are not being asked to give up 100 per cent. of their rights. Indeed, the treaty refers to minimum criminal standards in states throughout the European Union. That is helpful.

Mark Pritchard: On energy and the one-way street, is not it the case that there is no single energy policy for Europe and that the Germans and the French refuse to liberalise their energy markets, which means that energy security is a fantasy for most European partners?

Rob Marris: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman will vote with the Government on the treaty because the single market provisions give the United Kingdom greater leverage, which is the two-way street, on liberalising energy marketsthe very issue to which he refers.

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes his case with conviction, but will he face up to the fact that it is neither his constituents nor people in Greece or Germany who want to harmonise criminal law? That is being driven by the Commission and those who have a federal point of view about the European Union in looking for ever more matters to integrate. It is not driven by the people.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman knows the treaty better than I do. The provisions on harmonisationhe used the word harmonisedo not relate to minimum criminal standards, which are a different part of the treaty. The treaty does not propose harmonising criminal law.

James Clappison: rose

Rob Marris: If the hon. Gentleman wants to point out the reference to me later, he may do so.

Charles Hendry: I was not in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman began speaking, but I have just been made aware of his comments about last week's energy debate. On that occasion, we said that we objected to the European Union having the power to divert energy supplies from one country to another when it judged that it was a time of crisis. We did not say that it was a one-way trade. I specifically said that it was wrong for French gas reserves to be diverted to Britain, just as it would be wrong for British gas reserves to be diverted to France. In the light of that, I hope that he will withdraw his remarks.

Michael Lord: Order. The Committee must not be tempted to have another debate on energy, which we have already dealt with.

Rob Marris: I am grateful for that guidance. Let me say brieflywe are not rehearsing last week's debatethat my recollection of the treaty is that it refers not to diverting supplies, but to assistance.
	Yesterday, we had a debate on international aid, and previously we had a debate on foreign policy. There is an overlap between those subjects, although they are separate, and that overlap was part of the debate. The idea that those nasty foreigners will tell us what to do on the international stage about aid or foreign policy is completely off the mark. To use the noun that I employed yesterday, the proposals mean leverage for the United Kingdom. To use an expression from the earlier debate on foreign policy, they can mean an each-way bet as opposed to a one-way street. If we are alone on an issue, the treaty will allow us to stand alone in terms of the competences, decision making and allocation of powers, because foreign policy has to be held in common and determined by unanimity. If we agree with the other member states, we have leverage.
	When the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper) intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) about qualified majority voting and the blocking minorityI intervened subsequentlyhe presented the position negatively, as if it were always a question of how we could build a blocking minoritythe unspoken sentiment in brackets being, How can we stop those nasty foreigners doing things to the UK? That is such a negative perspective. We should consider ways in which we can work with other member states when QMV covers the competence to build a coalition to get what we want for our country and our national interests in the European Union.

Mark Harper: It was the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee who boasted about our increase in the share of the vote. He referred to a blocking minority, and the only Member who has talked about nasty foreigners is the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris).

Rob Marris: It should be quite clear to the hon. Gentleman and others that I am paraphrasing the flavour and tenor, as I see it, of many of the contributions of those on the Conservative Benches. I am not quoting and have never claimed to be quoting. However, we are talking not just about the blocking minoritythat is what sprung into his mindbut about the increase in our voting power from 8.5 to 12 per cent. SometimesI hope in a minority of casesthat would be used to form a blocking minority, but I hope, too, that on most occasions it would be used constructively to build a coalition to get what we want in the world, in our national interest, through the European Union.

Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend has spent a lot of time going through the treaty. He is so positive about every angle of it, so why is he afraid of having a referendum, so that the people can give their views on it and share or perhaps not share his confidence?

Rob Marris: I am not going to get into a big debate on the referendum, because it is raised endlessly in this place. What I am trying to put forward is what I see as the many positives in the treaty, of which I have become more convinced as we proceed. Without wearing rose-tinted spectaclesof course there are problems with the European Union[Hon. Members: Whoah!] Opposition Members exclaim as though that were a big deal. The European Union is an organisation encompassing, in round terms, 400 million people. Of course there will be problems with it. Do we walk away from those problems or do we stay in there and do what is in our country's interest by increasing our influence on the continent and in the world?
	In some ways, the European Union is one of the most successful international bodies in the world.  [ Interruption. ] There is laughter from Opposition Members, some of whom really ought to know better, because they are of an age to. Until we had the European Union, we had centuries of war in western Europe; since then there have been no wars between major states in western Europe. Cause and effect may or may not be involved, but that is not something on which I would wish to take the gamble. To be a member of that club, we have to give upyes, give upcertain powers, and in exchange we get other powers. That is to do with negotiations and building our influence in the world.
	I shall give an example of where some other countries think that we are going broadly along the right lines: it relates to Mercosur in Latin America. Although Mercosur has a slower and much more difficult process, because of the relative poverty in Latin America and the disproportionate size of Brazil, it has a political project as well as an economic project. Those in Mercosur derive great knowledge and experience from the European Union and they think that we are doing a good thing. The fact that they hold that view does not necessarily mean that we are doing a good thing, but it shows that having the European Union is not an anomaly.
	Members of the official Opposition should have a little more confidence in the European Union and a little more vision, because John Major was right when he lined upinitially with Denmark, but basically aloneto oppose deepening and propose widening. He was right, and he won. He built that coalition and he won.  [ Interruption. ] Again, Opposition Members laugh, but membership of the European Union has almost doubled since he took that stance, and it is widening.

Kelvin Hopkins: Many of us supported widening because we thought that it was a way of avoiding deepening, but the treaty is about deepening, not widening.

Rob Marris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is some deepening in the treaty, but had John Major not taken the position that I have described, there would have been either a bust-up of the European Union or a whole lot more deepening.
	Earlier today, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) talked about constitutional tinkering. I think that tinkering was the noun that he used [Interruption.] It may in fact be a gerund I am told. It describes a constant process within a dynamic institution that has expanded greatly in recent years. Many in the House would wish to see it continue to expand. When an organisation expands, it sometimes involves not simply a quantitative change but a qualitative change. With that qualitative change, we need what the right hon. Gentleman referred to as tinkering. We need to change things, and while the treaty perhaps does not get everything to do with the distribution of competences and powers right, it goes a long way towards sorting things out.
	I shall close[Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] There will be more later. I shall close by pointing out that, as some hon. Members know, I spent a lot of my professional life in negotiations. When people negotiate with partners, they often have ongoing relationships, as I did when I was acting for the victims of industrial injuries; I had them with insurance companies, for example, which would come in on one case and then on another the next week. When people have ongoing relationships in negotiations, there has to be give and take. It cannot be a one-way streettake, take, takewhich is what the official Opposition seem not to understand about negotiations.

Mark Francois: I begin my response to this group of amendments by briefly making a point about timing. We have debated important issues such as competences and marine biological resources. Unfortunately, however, yet again, because of the Government's business motion, we shall not touch on three other groups of important amendments on the operation of the institutions, on the European Union constitutional and treaty revision issues and on legislative and decision making procedures. Yet again, the Government's business motion has hampered the line-by-line scrutiny of the treaty that we were promised in lieu of a referendum. That needs to be put on the record again tonight.
	I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), who is no longer with us, citing the treaty's relationship with the UK abatement as an argument for the treaty. Let me remind the House that, as a result of the Government's miraculous negotiating skills on the abatementthe rebatethey gave away 7 billion of British taxpayers' money and got absolutely nothing in return. If that is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Lisbon treaty, it is no wonder that the public overwhelmingly want a vote on it.
	I shall now turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), whom I congratulate on being selected to lead the group tonight. He started by speaking to amendment No. 82, which seeks to remove replacement article 3A. He knows that I have a slight reservation about the proposal, because it would also remove article 3A(2), which relates to national security. In fairness, he touched on that point in his speech.
	I have a slight reservation about that, but I am much more comfortable about my hon. Friend's amendment No. 121, which seeks to strike out from the treaty the innovations brought into the categories and areas of Union competence. The amendment would improve the treaty by striking out the innovations to the list of the EU's areas of exclusive competencein other words, the areas in which the EU alone is allowed to legislateas well as to the list of shared competences, or areas in which the EU, in effect, has first refusal to legislate. The list of exclusive competences has been extended to include areas that would damage the UK's ability to legislate, such as competition policythe subject of an earlier debateand marine biological resources, under the common fisheries policy. That is the subject of specific amendments that I shall refer to briefly in a moment.
	Amendment No. 121 would also improve the treaty by striking out from the list of shared competences additions that were opposed by the Government, such as space, trans-European networks and consumer protection. It would also affect fundamentally the nature of the way in which the shared competences are listed in the treaty. It was the Government themselves, in their arguments on the Convention, who made this obvious observation:
	Shared competences should be a residual category. They should therefore not be listed explicitly. To have an 'indicative list' of some shared competences is the worst of both worlds.
	They were the views of Her Majesty's Government, and we agree with them. To list the categories in this way is, as the Government recognised, bad enough, but as they recognised equally correctly, the way they have been set out is not a restatement of the current position but an enlargement of the EU's powers.
	Amendment No. 121 would also strike out new article 2A, which attempts to set out the rules for the way in which competences are decided. On that point, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) said of the European Convention, when he was the Minister for Europe:
	This is an attempt to codify the existing case law and illustrates that to do so may result in oversimplification. So best left for case law. All the caveats that would be required to make this accurate would also make it far too complex for a constitution.
	The caveats that were asked for were not given, yet the rules were not taken out of the constitution and have reappeared in the Lisbon treaty as a result. That is another example of the Government's triumphant negotiating position with regard to Lisbon.
	I should like to say a few words on amendment No. 186, also proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. The amendment is designed to remove a new replacement article 308, which gives the EU the power to legislate in the following way:
	If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures.
	That wording gives rise to an important question, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stone will appreciate: who decides whether the action should prove necessary? At best, this wording is, like much of the treaty, ambiguous; at worst, the provision could give the EU a mechanism for legislating outwith the normal channels of legislation. It should not therefore have a place in the treaty.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree, as I explained earlier in some detail, that this is the most pernicious extension of the powers and competences? For the reasons that he has given and I explained, it allows an extension of powers without a treaty and it enhances the powers of the European Court of Justice in respect of accumulated functions under this treaty and these competences. With the leave of the Committee and the Chair, as a result of the pernicious nature of those provisions, I would like to press amendment No. 186, not amendment No. 82, to the vote.

Mark Francois: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He is quite right about the pernicious nature of replacement article 308. I think that he has indicated to the Chair that he would like to withdraw amendment No. 82 and press amendment No. 186.

William Cash: indicated assent.

Mark Francois: If that pleases the Chair, Conservative Members would be delighted to follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby to try to take this pernicious clause out of the treaty.
	Amendments Nos. 222, 225 and 131 deal with marine biological resources and fishing policy. They would improve the treaty by removing the damaging further extension of the EU's powers into marine policy. For instance, the SNP's amendment No. 222 would improve the treaty by striking out from the list of exclusive competences marine and biological resources. We heard a number of very good speeches on that particular topic, not least from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who combined serious points with humour. If I may say so, we heard a passionate speech from the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). We do not always agree with everything that his party stands for, as he knows, but he made a passionate and convincing speech on this matter tonight, on which I congratulate him. We also heard a very good speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), who provided a great deal of detail, not least because he happens to be an expert in this subject.
	The Minister was assailed from all sides of the House about fishing policy. The House does not support the Government's policy and I look forward to hearing the Minister's attempt to defend it against the criticisms that have been made by Conservative Members, Labour Members and, indeed, by Scottish National party Members. In fact, his policy was so bad that it was also criticised by the Liberal Democrats. That is the kind of problem in which the Minister found himself.
	Amendment No. 186 seeks to remove an ambiguous and dangerous provision, and would therefore improve the treaty. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone will press it to a vote. Amendment No. 222 seeks to remove a dangerous and unnecessary entrenchment of the EU's competence over marine and biological resources, which could hamper the United Kingdom's ability to manage its own conservation and marine policies. I hope that we shall be given a chance to vote on both those amendments, in defiance of the Government.

Jim Murphy: We have had a good debate. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) displayed great passion, if on occasion a lack of precisionalthough that is a matter of judgment for the hon. Gentlemanin his 43-minute speech, but I had the feeling that I had heard it before. I had, in fact, and I am certain that I shall hear it again tomorrow and next week. The hon. Gentleman reflected on the possibility of a conspiracy between the Government and the BBC, which he said did not report his words. I had assumed that the BBC ran so many repeats nowadays that his speeches were a staple of Friday night coverage.
	The hon. Gentleman also claimed that there was a united position in the Conservative party. I think we all accept that he has remained absolutely consistent, apart from what he considers to have been the momentary aberration of voting for the Single European Act, on which he has since recanted. He has stayed in exactly the same place, and his party has galloped rightwards towards him. It is now the only centre-right party in the European Union that opposes the treaty.  [Interruption.] I hear a Conservative Member ask What about the Czechs and the ODS? The fact is that the Czech Republic and the ODSthe Civic Democratic partyare in the Government of the Czech Republic, and they support the treaty and intend to ratify it.
	I mentioned a lack of precision on the part of the hon. Member for Stone. There was also hyperbole and overstatement. He described the debate on the treaty asI think I quote him accuratelyas great a battle as has been fought in the history of this country.

William Cash: Yes.

Jim Murphy: That was a ludicrous and ill-founded assertion. It is an insult to so many who have given so much for so long in important and genuine battles, in which many friends and families of Members in all parts of the House have been involved over many decades.

William Cash: We shall have an opportunity to consider some of these matters again tomorrow, but let me say this to the Minister. The debate on the Bill and the treaty is about the question of whether the voters of this country will be able to govern themselves. It is about the supremacy of this Parliament, and about the engrossment of the European Union and the European Court of Justice. That is why I say that it is such an important matter.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman made a similar point about the Maastricht treaty, the treaty of Amsterdam and the treaty of Nice, and this evening he is wrong about a European treaty for the fourth time.
	We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), the informed Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He spoke in great detail of the increasing power and influence of the United Kingdom as a result of the introduction of double majority voting. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) spoke with experience and passion about fishing issues, to which I shall return shortly, while the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) reflected his background as a Member of the European Parliament.
	I believe that, apart from the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and me, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) has spent more time in the Chamber than any other parliamentarian in any party. His considered reflection

Mark Francois: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was also alone in supporting the Government, with the exception of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford, South, and the hon. Member for Preston.

Jim Murphy: One of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stone attacks an important principle by seeking to remove the following provision in article 3b of the treaty on European Union:
	Competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States.
	That is an important statement of principle. It clarifies that the EU has only those powers that the member states give it through treaties, and that everything else remains with member states. It sets out the relationship between the EU and member states, making it clear that powers are given to the EU by member states, not the other way around. It makes it clear that member states are the masters of the treaties, as the German constitutional court has put it.
	The duty of sincere co-operation that is reflected herewhich has excited some Opposition Membersis not new. Britain signed up to that when we joined the European Community, and it is also reflected in the Maastricht treaty.
	On the amendments on the categories of competences, the text gives greater clarity than before on what the EU can and cannot do. The treaty also reinforces more than any previous treaty the limits of EU competence, and competences not conferred on the EU remain with member states. The Law Society of England and Walesnot some foreign threat, or part of any great conspiracysays in its report on the treaty of January this year that:
	EU law can only be made in those areas in which all EU countries, including the UK, have agreed that it is appropriate for action to be taken at European level.
	It also states:
	There are five areas in which the UK and other countries have agreed that the EU alone may pass new laws. None of these is new to the Treaty of Lisbon.
	Amendment No. 121 seeks to remove the codification of competences in the treaty. That is a denial of the reality, for the categorisation contained in the Lisbon treaty is not new. It is my strong view that as the treaty has been agreed, the allocation of competences is no longer a one-way street. Just because in the past something was better regulated by the EU than by nation states is not to say that things must remain the same for the next 20, 30 or 40 years, and the treaty makes that clear.
	Amendment No. 222, tabled by the hon. Member for Moray, attacks the inclusion in the treaty of a specific reference to the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy being defined as an exclusive EU competence. However, it is an exclusive EU competence, as we knew when we joined the EU. The treaty only confirms that. The Lisbon treaty makes no changes to the extent of the competence at European level on fisheries. Community competence over fisheries is shared, except for conservation measures, which have been exclusive since the UK's treaty of accession. That was confirmed by a European Court of Justice ruling in 1981.

Alex Salmond: As the Minister has said, it rests on court decisionsbefore 1981, specifically on the Kramer case of 1976. In other words, it is secondary community law. The Minister is acceding to putting it into a constitutional treatyto consolidating it into a constitutional treaty, as the draft constitution did before it. Why at no stage of any negotiationssuch as in the draft constitution or now in the constitutional treatydid the UK Government lift a finger to take it out, despite the many concerns and reservations that were expressed?

Jim Murphy: What is absolutely clear is that article 3(d) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union only has exclusive competence in respect of the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy. It is important that we have an international approach to conservation so we can work together and co-operate. Article 4(d) of the consolidated treaty on the functioning of the European Union stipulates that there shall be a shared competence on
	agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources.
	It is important that that is put on the record.
	More widely, there is a need for continued improvement to the common fisheries policy. Such issues continued to be debated, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby. In the past year, there has been a reduction in the discards of high value fish, such as cod, and a new cod avoidance programme, involving the industry, has been introduced in Scotland. Scientists and fishermen are working together, and Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation is involved in ensuring that those conversations take place.
	I believe that 41 Council meetings have taken place since devolution, and the Scottish Fisheries Minister has been involved in each one of those gatherings of fishing Ministers.

Russell Brown: As the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) pointed out, the Fishermen's Association Ltd has written to all Scottish Members. Will the Minister comment on the statement that this
	is the best chance we have to abandon the disastrous CFP?  [Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We must not have these interventions from sedentary positions across the Chamber.

Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) is right to raise this issue. The hon. Member for Moray heckles the UK Fisheries Minister from a sedentary position, and of course there is a need for further improvement of the common fisheries policyno one denies that. He is disappointed that Scottish Executive Ministers are just part of a delegation, but that is, and should remain, the position as long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom. As someone who is a Unionist and who does not believe in the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, I can say that that is the correct approach.
	Amendment No. 124 was tabled by the hon. Member for Stone. It attacks the principle that the EU should take into account social objectives when legislating, which is contained in paragraph 17 of article 2 of the Lisbon treaty's provisions on competences. To what in that provision does he and, I assume, his Front-Bench team take such great offence? It states that account must be taken of
	the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health..
	He and his Front-Bench team seek to remove that provision from the treaty. In opposing amendment No. 124, we make it absolutely clear that we want nothing to do with the agenda that would remove those guarantees of social protection for workers and citizens of our country.

William Cash: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me a few minutes to reply to some of those points. First, much of this discussion is based on the Lisbon agenda, which is a failed project that demonstrates that the European Union has aspirations, but does not work. I described these competences as an aggrandisement of powers, including not only an invasion of the legislative supremacy of this House, but an increase in the powers of the European Court of Justice. They are being pursued tenaciously, and in an iniquitous manner, against the background of the Government in many instances having reached the decision at the Convention that they did not want the powers in the first place. A complete contradiction lies at the heart of the Government's position. One of the most pernicious aspects of all this is the extension of the powers and competences of the ECJ without a corresponding new treaty to increase the competences of the European Union under article 308.
	Therefore I wish to press amendment No. 186, not amendment No. 82, to a Division. Amendment No. 186 deals with that pernicious extension and it was endorsed, I am glad to say, by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), the shadow Minister for Europe, who has just made an excellent speech. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 82.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, The Chairman  put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Questions on Amendments selected for separate decision, pursuant to Order [28 January and this day].
	 Amendment proposed: No. 222, in page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 12, new Article 2B TEC (TFEU), paragraph 1(d), relating to the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy; and
	(ii) '. [Angus Robertson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 175, Noes 285.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: No. 186, in page 1, line 12, after 'excluding', insert
	'(i) Article 2, paragraph 289, replacement Article 308 TEC (TFEU) relating to action within the framework of policies defined in the Treaties where the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers; and
	(ii)'. [Mr. Cash.]
	 Question put, That the amendment be made:
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 154, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again. [Mr. Blizzard.]
	 Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Local Government

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the draft Cheshire (Structural Changes) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

John Healey: Tonight we are considering the draft order to implement the proposal to establish two new unitary councils for Cheshire. The proposal was originally made to us by Chester city council, subsequently endorsed and enjoined by three other district councilsEllesmere Port and Neston, Macclesfield and Vale Royal. This is not the Government's proposal; it is not the Government's prescription for local government arrangements in Cheshire. It has been made to us by democratically elected and accountable councils, and it has been drawn up by those councils, which have discussed these views in their areas. They believe that it will put in place for the people and the businesses of Cheshire the best form of governance for the future of the area.

Ann Winterton: May I tell the Minister that in fact what he has just said is absolutely untrue in that the people of Cheshire do not want this? What was the Government's preferred option for Cheshire?

John Healey: If the hon. Lady checks the record tomorrow she will find that precisely what I said is correctthat this was a proposal not from the Government but from local councils, that it was proposed by them and that we considered it alongside other proposals, including one from the county council, according to the five criteria that we set out at the very start of the process back in October 2006.

Stephen O'Brien: Is the Minister in effect disowning responsibility for the proposal and saying that he is no more than a delegate of Chester city council in regard to this proposal, rather than a Minister in a Government with a democratic accountability and a judgment that should be scrutinised?

John Healey: Far from disowning the proposal, I come to the House with an order that proposes to put in place the arrangements that have been drawn up and put to us by councils in the Cheshire area.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Come now!

John Healey: The city of Chester first submitted the proposal; it was enjoined and is now supported by three other district councils and by other bodies that I shall detail in a moment.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Minister is being disingenuous, to say the least. Why is he not proud of the arrangement that he has made? Six district councils are involved. Why have we suddenly become the whipping boy and handmaiden of Chester? Why does he not say plainly that he and his Department proposed this in the first place and have constantly changed the goalposts to progress this very shoddy matter?

John Healey: Let me be clear. My Department certainly proposed the process and invited councils in two-tier areas across England to submit proposals for unitary arrangements. The minority of areas and councils submitted proposals, and the minority of those proposals have got to the stage of our looking to implement them.
	My point is simply this, and I make it first to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody): this process of putting in place unitary council arrangements is entirely different from the processes established by previous Governments. Those processes were centrally defined and the proposals came from the centre. In this instance, we have assessed what has been put to us. I have come to the House proposing to put this proposal into law because we believe that it and the arrangements offer a form of governance for the people, businesses and communities of Cheshire that will suit the future.

Christine Russell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bid of January 2007 was submitted by Chester city council on behalf of the six districts of Cheshire? All six districts signed up to it, including [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Members must cease intervening from a sedentary position. If they want to intervene, they should do so in the normal way so that we can have a sensible debate.

John Healey: Cheshire was in a relatively unusual situation compared with other parts of the country. Not only were two competing proposals submitted under the same single process but, uniquely, both proposals met the five criteria that we established at the outset. That was not the situation anywhere else in the country.
	We had to set out a way of making a judgment between the two proposals, and in June we published our arrangements and made clear how we would carry them out. It was to be on the basis of which of the proposals, based on the evidence submitted to us, would deliver to a greater extent the benefits for which we were looking in three principal areasfirst, strategic leadership; secondly, the empowerment of local people and local neighbourhoods; and thirdly, quality public services. Those made up our yardstick to try to distinguish between the relative merits of the two proposals.

George Osborne: The Minister drew a comparison with the ways that previous Governments had handled local government reorganisation. Will he confirm that last time the current Government considered this in the north-westin relation to what would happen if people voted for a regional assembly in the north-west, which never took place because the Government did not hold the referendumthere was a commitment also to have a referendum question on local government reorganisation? Why have the Government abandoned the practice that they advocated just a couple of years ago? The Minister talks about empowering the people; why has he decided on this occasion not to let the people decide?

John Healey: Because we set out in this process to approach the matter in an entirely different wayto be prepared to entertain proposals that were drawn up by elected councils representing their area and put to us as a Government. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that in 2004, under this Government, there was a question of potentially reorganising local government in Cheshire as part of the consideration of the wider referendum question on an elected regional assembly for the north-west. It was in the mid-1990s, under the previous Government of his party, that Cheshire was subject to potential reorganisation under the Banham proposals. As hon. Members who represent these parts of the county will know much better than I do, this is the third potential local government reorganisation in under 15 years. There comes a point when that continuing uncertainty starts to be a disadvantage, and there is a case for saying that it is important to make a decision and then allow those in the local areas to get on and try to implement it.

Simon Hughes: I am obviously not a Cheshire MP, but I was born in Cheshire. Let me express a concern that I sense is felt by many colleagues of all parties. This proposal, yet again, does a further job of breaking up an historic shire community that has already been sliced off at one edge around Manchester and sliced off at the other edge. It absolutely will not create what the Government say elsewhere that they wanta sense of real community cohesion. In that respect, it is the worst option, not the best option.

John Healey: I hope that I will get the chance to come to that a little later. However, that is not the assessment that we have made of the potential for offering local areas a greater opportunity to be involved and to have an influence over decision making. The hon. Gentleman may have been born in Cheshire, but he misrepresents the nature of that unified, integrated, remaining historic shire county. It was the mid-1990s reorganisation that led to the carving out of Halton and Warrington.
	Truth be told, the historic county of Cheshire has been broken up into bits previously. The question now is what is the best form of governance for the future within the area that is covered by Cheshire county council. I recognise that several Opposition Members argue for the status quo, but our starting point is that the general case for unitary local government is strong. It is a way of overcoming some of the well- established problems with county and district local government. The public are generally confused. The delivery of services can be fragmented. Local leaderships are sometimes competing. There is often duplication and inefficiency in the way that things are delivered. In the case of Cheshire, without imposing a unitary arrangement, we are close to arriving at a potential set of arrangements that will allow unitary local government for its people, based on the proposal that was originally put to us by City of Chester council.

Bob Neill: Can the Minister help me on this point? If it is the case that the benefits are so obvious, why did the previous Secretary of State, as recently as July 2006, describe local government reorganisation as a great distraction? If that is the case, what objective criteriabenchmarks and measureshas the Minister put in place against which he can judge the evidence? I think he will tell me, as he has on previous occasions, that it is a subjective process. Is that really an acceptable basis on which to proceed?

John Healey: The prospect of any change can be distracting, disruptive and unsettling. That is certainly the case for those who are intimately involved with, work for, and serve on, councils in the Cheshire area, which is one of the reasons why I am keen that this House and the other place come to a decision on the proposals. People will then know where they stand. If this House and the other place vote to support the move towards unitary arrangements, it will allow everyone involvedas they are already beginning to do, whatever their initial view of the proposal's meritsto begin to ensure that from 1 April 2009 we can put in place two effective unitary councils for the benefit of those in the area.

Mike Hall: My hon. Friend said earlier that Opposition Members wanted the status quo. The status quo in Cheshire, which would be the retention of county councils and the district councils, was on offer when five of the six districts in Cheshire said that they wanted to retain it. What stopped the status quo being an option was Cheshire county council's decision to go for a single unitary authority. That is when the districts changed their policy. It is important to note that throughout the consultation, the status quo was never an option after that decision.

John Healey: My hon. Friend has followed this matter closely from the outset, and throughout previous years. He makes a sound point.
	It is not just a matter of the potential gains and how we assess them when judging the relative merits of the two proposals that meet the five criteria; it is also a matter of the consequences of making such changes. To that extent, we considered two things. First, we considered affordability. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) looks for harder criteria and better yardsticks. From the outset, we required the proposals that we looked to implement to deliver realistic savings and to have a payback period within five years. I can confirm that our assessment of the proposals shows that the transitional costs of such a change are more than offset by the potential savings. The payback period falls well within the five-year deadline.

Nicholas Winterton: There are seven Members from Cheshire who would like to contribute briefly to this debate, which is about Cheshire. I would like to make a suggestion. Would the Minister agree to make a very short introduction to the debate, and then allow Members to express themselves? Hopefully, Members will then allow him sufficient time at the end to make a winding-up speech. That would be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the debate because it would allow those Members to express their views.

John Healey: Since I got to my feet, I have spent more time dealing with interventions than making the remarks I had originally proposed to make. If the will of the House, through any interventions I now take, suggests general assent to that idea, I am happy to take it up. In any case, I will do my best to answer the points raised in the debate. I recognise that the debate is well attended, especially by hon. Members from the area.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: At the risk of upsetting the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), may I draw the Minister's attention to the explanatory memorandum? Bearing in mind the fact that several changes have been made to the figures, it cites estimated annual savings of more than 16 million a year and transitional costs of approximately 25 million. Those figures were not in the proposal, which states that the ongoing savings will be 30.1 million and that transitional costs will be 16.6 million. In other words, the Government do not accept the figures that they presented.

Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Lady did not upset me.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I will try harder.

John Healey: My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich makes an important point and helps me to make the next observation. In my view, it was important, when we considered the financial case and whether the proposals were affordable, not simply to take the figures submitted to us by councils that backed specific proposals. We therefore brought in, through the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the Institute of Public Finance, independent financial experts who gave me, as Minister, advice on the case.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: It has not been published.

John Healey: The figures and main conclusions of the independent assessment were set outmy hon. Friend just read them out. They led the independent experts to conclude that the transitional costs on a prudent basis would be higher and the savings would be lower than those in the proposal once the arrangements were in place. Nevertheless, the savings would be 16 million, which is at the higher end of the restructuring proposals that the House has considered and approved in five other areas. We concluded that the pay-back period would be well within five yearswe calculated that it would be just over three and a half years.
	Let me make a general point about the requirement for a broad cross-section of support. We said at the outset that we were not looking for evidence that a specific proposal commanded majority support, and that we would not allow any group or interest to have a veto over a proposal. The essential judgment that we had to make was whether there was a sufficiently broad cross-section of support to give us confidence that, if we proceeded with the proposal, it had a reasonable chance of being implemented successfully. That was our approach.
	I should like to draw hon. Members' attention to the main, although not all, elements of the order. We prepared the order, as we prepared those for other areas, through detailed discussion, with agreement as far as possible and certainly with consultation with all the affected councilsthose who proposed the two unitary authorities solution, those who opposed it and those who took no view on the competing proposals.
	The order provides that, from 1 April 2009, there will be a single tier of local government in Cheshire. Unlike the five other orders that the House has agreed, there is no continuing authority, but a wholly new start. The order provides for establishing two joint implementation committees, one for Cheshire, East, to be led by the current leader of Macclesfield, and one for Cheshire, West and Chester, to be led by the current leader of Vale Royal. They will serve before the elections in the respective shadow authorities, which we intend to set up this year. The order provides for elections in May on the basis of interim warding arrangements for those councils. It also provides for cancelling district council elections, which would otherwise happen in May 2008.
	I accept that the time scale for implementing the proposals by April 2009 is challenging. There are good grounds for believing that that is achievable, not least the strong leadership that local government in Cheshire is providing for the work on implementing the proposals. There is practical co-operation, even from those who opposed the proposals, so preparations are well under way. The nature of the support and involvement that we can offer from the centre is also important.
	Finally, the order sets out an approach to the transition that will be as effective as possible, minimise disruption to services in Cheshire, give a good deal to the service users, be fair and equitable to the council staff and, above all, help to lay the groundwork for a form of governance for the people, businesses and communities in Cheshire that will serve them well in the future. I commend the order to the House.

Bob Neill: I am conscious of the number of right hon. and hon. Members who wish to participate in this debate and will do my level best to keep my comments short. However, I should like to set out one or two important issues.
	The Minister and I have got to know each other quite well in this round of local government restructurings. He knows that I have every respect for him, but when he tried to set out the proposition that the proposal somehow walked through the door of the Department for Communities and Local Government, without any prompting and without his wanting or acknowledging it, he did not do himself justice. The fact is that the Government have set up Henry Ford's consultation: we can have any form of authority as long as it is unitary. The consultation really is as simple as that, and to suggest that the proposal is uninspired by a heavy hint from the Government is, to be as polite as I can be, disingenuous.

Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council's all-party policy has for a number of years been to move towards a unitary solution? The council's original preferred solution was to create three authorities, but it compromised on two.

Bob Neill: I have no reason at all to dispute what the hon. Gentleman says, but since we are dealing with the whole county, it might have been a good idea to seek the whole county's views. That is why it is surprising that, for example, my constituents in Bromley had a say in a referendum when local government was restructured in London, but his do not in this case.

Mike Hall: The hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government's approach, but what is his solution for Cheshire: the status quo, one unitary or two unitaries?

Bob Neill: Many people would say that if the consultation were genuine, it is surprising that there should have been no option to improve two-tier working. That is rather odd, since the Government have sought pathfinder bids to do exactly that in other contexts. If that was good and acceptable in parts of the east midlands, I do not see why it is unacceptable in the north-west.

Christine Russell: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that in 2002, following a report by the boundary committee for England, all six districts in Cheshire and the county council looked at the viability of two or three unitaries? In 2006, a joint officers working party was established to consider whether to go for two or three options, so the proposals have not been plucked out of the air in the past few months. May I also tell him

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The answer is no. Speeches must be short tonight and interventions must be much shorter.

Bob Neill: I would have thought that the hon. Lady would make my point. If there were such a divergence of opinion, it would have been better to ask the people to start with, rather than imposing the change through worthy bodies on committees.
	My pointwe have gone through this many times before, but the principles do not changeis simply this. When we consider the large amount of risk, in terms of uncertainty and cost, that inevitably arises in any restructuring in local governmentit is not too difficult to unpick the figures that have been quoted in support of the current proposals by citing the work of academics, such as Professor Chisholm and othersit is not unreasonable to say: first, that the onus of proof should be on those who propose change; secondly, that the burden of proof should be high; thirdly, that it should be based on firm evidence; and fourthly, that that evidence should be judged against clear and objective criteria. I am sorry to say that the conclusion, on balance, that this proposal has a more reasonable chance than the other is scarcely the application of any form of evidence to reasonable criteria. This is a suck-it-and-see form of politics, and it is not fair on the people who live in Cheshire or in any of the other affected counties.
	The Government have not managed to make their case, which they have based entirely on one set of proposals. They have not explored the important alternative of improved two-tier working.

Mike Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Neill: I want to make a bit of progress. I have let the hon. Gentleman intervene once, but if he will be quick, I will do so once more.

Mike Hall: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that enhanced two-tier working was an option until Cheshire county council decided to go for a single unitary. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is what killed it?

Bob Neill: I am going to let people from the county respond to that one, while I get on with making the simple point that the hon. Gentleman ought to consider the fact that, at the end of the day, we are left with a set of proposals that will reduce the number of councillors across the whole of the county. They do not set out a coherent framework for what exists beneath the unitary level. Nor do they answer the serious questions about the methodology used to make the initial financial case. Finally, they do not demonstrate a groundswell of opinion. I think that the Minister used that term in relation to the earlier order on Shropshire. There is manifestly no groundswell of opinion here. That view is held by Members on both sides of the House.
	This is yet another example of the Government tinkering, with what can only be described as partial motives. I wonder what makes anyone think that parts of Cheshire should be treated in a different way from parts of the other counties that surround our major conurbations. There is no consistency in the Government's approach. It is not based on evidence, and they do not have an intellectually coherent anchor on which to hang their case. With respect, they would have done better to listen to Sir Michael Lyons, who is not unacquainted with local government in the north-west of England. He said:
	It is my opinion that reorganisation is not, in most cases, likely to provide either a theoretical or practical solution to the challenges we face, and there are other approaches that authorities should seek in preference.
	I think that Sir Michael was right, and it is a pity that the Ministers did not listen to him.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I was astonished at the way in which the Minister introduced this order. Whichever way we look at it, the Department said in 2007 that it was going to look for reorganisation. It is important to understand what it was asking. It said of the bids for unitary status:
	It is wholly at the discretion of a Council whether or not it responds to this invitation. The Government accepts that it is only in some areas that Local Government restructuring is widely seen as the way forward. It will be from Councils in such areas that proposals are made.
	The Department then went on to make it clear that it would take note of local views and expect to consult a vast cross-section of the people involved, and that it would certainly take account of those working in education and social services and in any other areas that would be directly affected by the order.
	When it became clear, to people's astonishment, that the council was actually suggesting a proposal that was not supported by the majority of Cheshire ratepayers, there was an enormous attempt to discover exactly what the council had meant in its letter which stated that it was minded to put forward this suggestion, and that it would be based on the criteria that had been discussed. The reality is that it was not based on anything of the sort.
	We must be quite clear that, in the discussion on the figures that were put forward for the authorities, there has been a constant shifting of the goalposts, and not just by the Department. A bid based on Chester has constantly changed. The savings have changed, the administration costs have changed and it is very clear that the information given to the Government was not strong enough to support their viewotherwise, they would have been quite prepared to support the request made under the Freedom of Information Act for a copy of the assessment and would not have needed to refuse it. If the report vindicates the decision further to change the financial envelope, why does the Department wish to conceal it? There must be a reason.
	We should make it quite clear that when the decision to opt for a unitary basis for the whole of the county of Cheshire was made, it was not done for something as simple as the status quo. A great deal of work went into making it clear that we were prepared to consider a county region, that we were aware of the economic and political costs and that we were very clear about Cheshire's ability to attract direct investment flows from all around it. We are all aware of Cheshire's close connections with Liverpool, Manchester, the Potteries and north Wales, which make it unique in its operation.
	What is now clear, however, is that no matter whether we look at the independent review of Local Government Futures, the assessments done on behalf of the county or the subsequent assessments by the Department itself, the impact of this reorganisation will be absolutely disastrous. The county will be divided into two, both unitaries will be faced with direct economic problems and they will both lose money.
	Under the current needs methodology, the report concluded that west Cheshire unitary would be entitled to 82.7 million of formula grant and east Cheshire 54.1 million; but the proposed two-unitary model, when uplifted to the present settlement figures, allocates only 76.4 million to the west and 60.4 million to the east. The local agreement deprives the west of 6.3 million of formula grant a year2.5 per cent. of council taxand the funding is effectively permanently lost in the form of a financial subsidy to the east because in three years' time, the national grant distribution formula will be applied to the two unitaries using their locally agreed allocation. It is totally unrealistic to assume that one authority will agree to provide a substantial financial subsidy to the other. In fact, it may prove to be unlawful and in breach of the authority's fiduciary duties to council tax payers.
	Although we looked closely into the economics, it is not just a matter of the amounts of money involved. Almost without exception, the education services wrote to Ministers making it very clear that, whether it be the teams built up to deal with special education or social services, they would all face very real difficulties with the reorganisation that was being pushed through over their heads. What happened? The Minister in the other place, Lord Adonis, wrote to them, saying effectively, Oh well, we are very concerned about what you say, but don't worry, after you have reapplied for your own jobs you will have to work together. Well, that is brilliant, is it not? First, we will divide you up; then force you to go through an entire reorganisation; then we say, what is really important for the county is that you work together. Some people may not find that insulting; I find it absolutely bizarre.
	We want to know exactly how the Government intend to make up the shortfall in finances. We want to know exactly how they imagine that a carefully planned authority, which has just been given an excellent ratinga better rating than it had beforecan be expected to tear itself in two and produce a level of change that will meet the needs of my constituents in any way.
	In reaching her decision, the Secretary of State took the view that a single unitary authority would not reflect the
	economic reality that many consultees perceive splits Cheshire between East and West,
	although she was not able to produce the number of consultees or any evidence about them. The existence of the opposite view, however, was very plaineven on the No. 10 Downing street website, which today bore nearly 2,000 signatures defending Cheshire's status as a unitary whole.
	Cheshire is a powerful economy in its own right. It is independent of the surrounding city regions of Liverpool and Manchester, and it requires a strong and coherent strategic approach to development. There is a fundamental misinterpretation of the economic evidence suggesting a split economy in Cheshire, and the decision on the basis of east-west economic flows reveals a simplistic and partial understanding of the economy.
	On Monday, the Minister published the results of his Department's stakeholder consultation, which had resulted in 906 responses. There were 27 responses from local government, 64 from town and parish councils, 67 from the public sector, 35 from the business sector and 35 from the voluntary and community sector, as well as 680 public responses. There were 200 further responses which the Department decided to discount.
	The Department's report describes overwhelming support for keeping Cheshire together. The county council's proposal was supported by a quarter of town and parish councils, with only a very small number supporting the alternative. Public sector respondents and all the schools were in favour of single unitary status, as were the majority of voluntary and community organisations, and the business community made it very clear that it did not want the change.
	I find it extraordinary that although it is clear that only the single-unitary proposal is capable of meeting the broad cross-section of support criterion, that fact is to be ignored and we are to be pushed into a two unitaries arrangement. The Department has been highly selective in its approach to evidence of stakeholder and public support, which suggests that Ministers were aware that many unitary proposals were unlikely to receive public endorsement. The Secretary of State was entirely wrong not to consult the public directly, especially as the invitation to submit proposals in October 2006 stated explicitly that the Department would undertake consultation before making decisions.
	The practical difficulties are such that problems are already being posed to library services for the elderly, to special educational needs teams, to the way in which we plan the development of education for the future, and to children's care services.

Mike Hall: Tory county councils!

Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend chooses to ignore the majority of the ratepayers of Cheshire on the grounds that they are all Tories. He may take that view, but it is not reflected in the facts.
	Disaggregation of the county council's engineering services will duplicate activities and increase costs, and the waste problem will increase enormouslyquite apart from the difficulty involved in dividing the assets. I could go on to describe the problems that will be caused to trading standards and staff, and the real problems involved in disaggregating county-based services.
	I have been alone in this, and it has been convenient for some of my colleagues to suggest that I have been seduced by the arguments of a Conservative county council. I have been here for a long time, and it takes a bit of effort for any man to seduce me, particularly when it comes to politics and economics. I reflect the views of those who have consistently expressed to me their anger and astonishment at the way in which the issue has been handled, and their total disbelief that a Labour Government could proceed with a project that is neither affordable nor supported, which does not provide value for money, and which will not fulfil the criteria that were originally set out.
	I can only say that I am astounded by this behaviour. I am astounded that we are putting my constituency and those of other Members through the mangle at enormous speed by telling them that they must run for a shadow authoritythat they must come up with conclusions, and that they must then go forward to elections to a shadow authority which is not capable of working together and where the two particular committees that have been brought together will find it extraordinarily difficult to come up with any sensible views.
	I believe above all that the Minister should have had the guts to say tonight, We wanted to do this. The Secretary of State wanted to do it and took this decision, and has never given a political or economic reason or any argument that would stand up to examination. I cannot believe that this is going ahead, but if it does, it will not do so with my support.

Daniel Rogerson: My remarks are to be directed at the issue of time scales, and with that in mind I shall try to keep them brief.
	My party is very supportive of the concept of unitary local government where it is appropriate for the area concerned. However, the process that gets us towards that is crucial, and there are a number of issues that we need to bear in mind. The time scales imposed on this particular process have restricted local debate so that consultation has been rudimentary. I welcome the fact that some of the proposals have been discussed for a long time prior to the process, but the time scales set out under the provisions have restricted proper formal consultation.
	In many of the bidding processes that have already been debated in the House, one authority has been advancing one case while another has been advancing another, and they have tended to do so in a self-interested way. As time is constrained, the process has not allowed for a more sensible debate, and people have retreated into silos, which is unfortunate. That is a feature of how the process has been set up. Many of the polls, referendums and consultations that have been undertaken have been seen to be flawed and called into question because they have had to be carried out rapidly and there were limitations on what could be achieved.
	The short period available to compile bids may lead to having hostages to fortune later on that come back to haunt the people tasked with implementing the bids, when they come to do so. We have also heard that the time scale has influenced some authorities to react to the response of other authorities. For example, a county council might bid, and districts might feel that they have to react in a certain way. That is another feature of the time-scale constraints placed on the process.
	What will happen if the order is passed? In contrast with some other areas, including my own area of Cornwall, in Cheshire the proposal is for a shadow council to be elected, instead of having a period in which representatives of existing authorities come together to draw up how things will move forward. There are arguments for and against both those processes. Clearly, where officers are to be appointed, the shadow authority has the electoral mandate to be able to carry that out. However, with two very new authorities, the situation is different from that which pertains in other bid areas where existing authorities cover the area.

Christine Russell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are joint implementation teams in Cheshire that include officers and members of the six districts and the county council. They are working together extremely well and constructively and are on target to deliver the two new authorities.

Daniel Rogerson: My concern is that these are two new authorities, and some councillors who are elected to the shadow authorities might be inexperienced; we know that many existing councillors will not stand for re-election because they are not happy with the proposals. As a result, some councillors might have to get up to speed quickly, without existing councillors being able to deal with the work.
	There is a great deal of disquiet, particularly among those who have been involved in delivering services at county level, that the two new authorities may not be able to deliver services and that the efficiencies will not be delivered because services will be divided rather than brought together. That problem is crucial
	What could have been a positive process has undeniably been a negative one in terms of some of this debate. It has become divisive, and whatever the relative merits of having a single unitary authority, two unitary authorities or a two-tier option, the way in which the process has directed people in Cheshire to participate is unfortunate. It is ironic that one of the most powerful arguments for having unitary local government is that it simplifies structures and decision making and means that electors have fewer institutions to deal with when they have to resolve a problem with a particular service, because this process is leading to further misunderstanding among people in Cheshire as to exactly what is being proposed. That remains a problem for the county and an important lesson for the Government. Whenever they consider something like this in future, they must allow far greater time scales, so that proper consultation can take place and people can move forward in a far more positive way.

Andrew Miller: I shall be brief. I want to correct some inaccuracies. A number of hon. Members have said in Cheshire. Cheshire is, of course, an historic county. As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) will recall, its boundaries included Wirral, Stockport and so on. Those areas disappeared off from Cheshire some time ago. In the early 1990s, Halton and Warrington became unitary authorities. When the hon. Gentleman lived up there, Halton was half in Lancashire and half in Cheshire. The notion that this proposal is splitting Cheshire is fallacious, and we should put that on the record once and for all. Cheshire started to change geographically a considerable time ago.
	I have received a number of e-mails telling me that I am destroying 1,000 years of historyI am sure that other hon. Members have received similar correspondence. I have been around the political system for a long time. I was around in the 1974 local government reorganisation, when a substantial part of Cheshire was separated offthat was not quite 1,000 years agoand in the subsequent reorganisation in the 1990s. This proposal does not split Cheshire; it splits the remaining part of Cheshire. For the purposes for which you and I consider counties, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the historic county remains, although Cheshire is a minor county in cricket.
	The second misconception is that the proposal splits the county councilit does not. It is about seven authorities becoming two. That is a matter of fact, and the efficiency gains come from it. The third point that I want to makeI mentioned this to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)is that it has been the policy of Ellesmere Port and Neston borough council, on the basis of a three-party agreement, to support this proposal. I hope that Opposition Members will accept that that is said with absolute sincerity, because it is an all-party position.
	The proposal makes sense because economically Cheshire faces two different ways. The west of the countymy part of the countyis part of an economic unit generally called the Deeside hub which is one of the fastest growing parts of the British economy. We have a little local difficulty with the significance of the Welsh boundary and indeed the Merseyside boundary, but they work, and the area works as an economic unit that transcends the local government boundaries. The reality is that that part of the economy faces into north Wales and into Merseyside. Indeed, when I dealing with the Vauxhall Motors case last year, presenting an argument for support from General Motors Europe, I discovered that more than 1,000 people working at Vauxhall travelled in from north Wales. That is a dynamic local economy.
	The relationships with Crewe and Nantwich are almost non-existent. The good folk of Crewe and Nantwich work in that area and towards the Potteries and Manchester. The economy faces two ways [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has had her say [ Interruption. ] I can be even ruder.
	There is a fundamental argument in favour of a split somewhere down the centre of the county. I would have preferred it to be slightly more to the west, but that would have been the three unitary solution that was dismissed at a much earlier stage by the county. First, we need to remember the history of the countythis is not about splitting into two, but about seven becoming two. Secondly, there is the powerful argument that the economy faces two ways, which is a sound argument in favour of the proposal. Therefore, I ask the House to support it.

Nicholas Winterton: First, I wish to thank the Minister for the courtesy that he extended to me during the consultation period. I am grateful for that.
	This latest local government restructuring has been an extremely painful experience. It has set council against council and councillor against councillor. Some of us believe that it is a way for the Government to reduce the number of Conservative councils and of Conservative councillors, so that the Government can take over the Local Government Association, but I am sure that I must be wrong about that.
	The process has been painful. I believe that the Cheshire county council and the six borough and district councils should have embarked on a programme to improve the two-tier system. They should have learned from and built on the experience of the pathfinder authorities, and they should have implemented the propositions in Strong and Prosperous Communities, which was a Government document. The councils should have developed the devolution of real power and responsibilities to parish, town and community councils. Sadly, they did not do that in Cheshire.
	The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) is right to say that the councils broke ranks. As a result, when it came to the real consultation, instead of being able to negotiate an improved two-tier system of local governmentwhich would have been overwhelmingly accepted in Cheshirewe were left with two options. One was for a single unitary authority, based on the Cheshire county council, and the other was for two unitary authoritieseast Cheshire, and west Cheshire and Chester. The Minister and his colleagues decided that the two unitary proposal was their preferred solution to the problems of local government in Cheshire. On 18 December, the announcement was made that Cheshire would have two unitary authorities, based on the three councils in east Cheshire and the three councils in west Cheshire. I personally regret that, but that is the realpolitik.
	I sympathise with the passion with which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke. In many ways, I share her concern. At the end of the day, I supported the proposal for two unitary authorities because Macclesfield borough council was strongly in favour of it. When the third option of the status quo was removed, and the choice was between a single unitary authority and two unitary authorities, my borough council was strongly in favour of having two. I have to say to the hon. Lady, whose passion impressed me, that I felt obliged to support my council and the people of Macclesfield whoby a majority, if letters in the press and other representations are taken into accountsupported the idea that Macclesfield should be part of the east Cheshire authority.
	I want to be brief to allow many of my colleagues to get in. I want to say, constructively, that the seven Cheshire local authoritiesthe six borough and district councils and the county councilhave lost no time in establishing joint committees for east Cheshire and for west Cheshire and Chester, as the Minister said. They have also set up related joint implementation teams of officers. That shows a positive attitude. It builds on the preparatory work undertaken by the sponsoring authorities, and is in accordance with the provisions of the draft order that we are considering. The joint committees have met several times informally in advance of the making of the order and a joint liaison committee has also been set up to deal with overarching issues. We cannot always look back on such matters as much as I would personally wish to do so.
	The east and west Cheshire joint implementation teams have met weekly since the beginning of this year, with positive and dynamic input, particularlythis will surprise the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich from senior county council managers, who are leading key areas of work, including work in people services, human resources and drafting the implementation plan. Specialists in key services operated by the county council and its partners support that work. In all the arrangements, all seven local authorities and their partners are actively and positively involved with major partners, signalling their desire to be more fully engaged. Good progress is being made.
	I regret that the restructuring orders are being introduced. Change is not required, but we were faced with two options. Instead of telling the Government that they would seek to co-operate to achieve a more efficient, improved two-tier system, the six district and borough councils and the county council in Cheshire did not work together. The major part of the county, the county council, broke ranks. As a result, we were faced with the two options. Of those two options, the one that is the subject of the order has my tacit support. I believe that localism in local government is critical. People want to identify with their county councillorsor their councillors, as they will be in the future. That can be better achieved by having the two unitary authorities and a smaller structure, rather than a dramatically large council.
	I have every respect for the county council. I have the great honour of being a deputy lieutenant of the county and I want to see much of the tradition of the county retained. Although I deeply regret what is happening, the fact is that we are faced with a fait accompli. Of the two options, I went for the two unitary authorities.

Mike Hall: First, I thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) for the way in which he has put on the record where we are now in terms of the debate. When I campaigned for unitary local government in Warrington and Halton, Macclesfield should have had unitary status at the same time, and then we might well not have had this debate.
	I have been a strong supporter of unitary local government. It brings local government closer to the people, removes the confusion of the two-tier system and places large responsibilities on those authorities that take over. That is the way forward.
	I shall be honest with the House: like my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), I originally favoured the three unitary authority approach for Cheshire. That was the agreed position of the six district councils in the county, but the Government said that it was not acceptable. The districts considered the matter again and, following an intervention from Conservative Front-BenchersI make no criticism of them for thatfive of the six districts said that they would support an enhanced two-tier arrangement.
	That was against their better instincts, as the districts wanted unitary local government, but they were told in no uncertain terms that they were to support enhanced two tier. The districts had been in agreement, but what broke the mould was the vote taken by the county council in support of a resolution that Cheshire should become a single unitary authority. It put a huge amount of money from council tax payers into the campaign, and that forced the districts to go back to the drawing board.
	The districts came up with the two unitary authority solutionthat is, east and west Cheshirethat my hon. Friend the Minister set out earlier from the Dispatch Box. That is the point at which the campaign became difficult. Cheshire county council embraced the campaign for a single unitary authority, but it also began to do some serious scaremongering, saying that the Government were proposing to call the two unitary authorities Manshire and Merseyshire.
	That was absolute nonsense, but the county council then claimed that it was campaigning to stop Cheshire being split up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, the county had 15 local authorities in 1974. They were responsible for delivering local government in the traditional shire county of Cheshire, but all that has changed. The county council has now proposed abolishing itself and the six other local authorities to create two unitary authorities, but its premise was that that would save the county council. That incorrect assertion has been repeated again this evening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has taken three positions on this proposal. She was in favour of the status quo, then of enhanced two tier, and then of a single unitary county council. I might not disagree if the option before us was enhanced two tier, and certainly not if the proposal was for three unitary councils to cover the area covered by the county council and the six districts. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield, for whom I have huge respect, in that I do not want a single unitary authority for the whole area covered by the county council and the six districts.
	I turn now to the important question of affordability. The position adopted by the city of Chester was put forward in a report that was backed up by independent accountants. It was that the pay-back period for the two unitary authority solution for Cheshire would be four years, and that money100 for each council tax payer affectedwould be available to equalise council tax. That is a very important matter, but the report also stated that money would be made available for new services, if the two unitary authorities wanted to spend it. I think that those are fundamental factors in favour of the reorganisation that we are discussing.
	I appreciate that other hon. Members wish to speak in this short debate, so I shall end with two final points. The first has to do with how we take the matter forward. An important debate is under way, but Cheshire county council and the six districts have got together and accepted what the Government are proposing. They have not mounted any legal challenge to the order that is before the House: instead, they have got down to working out how to deliver two unitary authorities in the county, and they are doing a fantastic job.
	I want to commend two individuals for the work that they have done. It is not often that civil servants get the recognition that they deserve, but the lead two chief executives for the proposed west Cheshire unitary and the proposed east Cheshire unitary have done a fantastic job in taking the agenda forward, and they have not been held back by the debates that have gone on in some parts of the House today. Mrs. Anne Bingham-Holmes, the chief executive of Vale Royal borough council, is a first-class chief executive. She works for a Conservative local authority that is fully behind the proposals that we are debating, and I commend her. Viv Horton, the chief executive of Macclesfield borough councilthe council that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield representsis also a first-class chief executive. She is leading the way for that authority to make east Cheshire a unitary authority. Now is not the time to emphasise our divisions; we should be saying, This is what we'll do, and what is in the best interests of everybody whom we represent. We should take that agenda forward in a positive way.

George Osborne: I shall keep my remarks brief because two of my Conservative colleagues and the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christine Russell) want to speak. I do not disagree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), who has a neighbouring constituency to mine. We certainly want the east and west authorities to work, if the plans for them go ahead. We want the transition to be as smooth as possible, and we want costs to be kept to a minimum. It is alarming that, since the process began, the Government's estimates of the cost have nearly doubled, and the estimate of the savings has nearly halved. I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the two chief executives that I deal with as a constituency MP, Anne Bingham-Holmes and Vivienne Horton. I wish them well in the task ahead.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that when the members of Cheshire county council to say on the issue, it began the process that led to tonight's debate. However, we have an opportunity to stop the process tonightor rather tomorrow, when we vote using the pink slips. We could stop a process that many people in the county, and many Members present who represent the county, believe is wrong, unwarranted, undemocratic and unsupported by the facts. When the original process began, following the White Paper and the invitation to the councils to submit a bid, the Government said that they wanted any bids for unitary status to command broad support. Indeed, I think that the Minister said something similar to that in his opening remarks.
	We are about to proceed with a proposal that was initially supported by only one council group on one district council in one part of the county. That council group lost its position as the leadership group on that council in subsequent local elections. It is true that different district councilsfaced with the fait accompli, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) put it, of Cheshire county council's decisionthen worked on their own proposals for two or three unitary authorities in Cheshire, but let us remember that the proposal that we are being asked to support tonight was originally supported by only one council group on one district council.

Christine Russell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

George Osborne: Yes, but briefly, because I want to give the hon. Lady a chance to speak.

Christine Russell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that when Chester city council made its bid in January 2007, there was a Liberal-Labour administration, but the bid was wholly backed by the Conservative group. That group, which took power last May, has had nine months to overturn that resolution, and it has not done so.

George Osborne: As I understand it, a Conservative group on Chester city council made different proposals from those that the previous leadership[Hon. Members: No.] Well, we could debate the issue at greater length if we had the time, but sadly we do not, because of the timetabling.
	I return to the point that the proposal was not originally supported by a large number of councils in Cheshire. On every attempt to test public opinion in Cheshire, it has not been supported by the public; that applies to the referendum held in Crewe and Nantwich and the opinion survey carried out in the county. The Government have refused to hold a referendum, even though when we discussed local government reorganisation just four years ago there was a proposal for a referendum, not just on regional government, but on the local government arrangements in Cheshire.
	The House is left to decide whether to impose on the people of Cheshire a form of local government that has not received any public support. We can make many arguments for and against the proposed changes, but striking warnings have been made by, among others, members of the education system in Cheshireteachers, head teachers and governors. The concern of the fire authority is striking, and it is also striking that the majority of Members of Parliament representing Cheshire oppose the local government reorganisation. We can make all these points, but the central point is surely this: in the end, democratic arrangements and local government structures should be based on identities that people have in their hearts, not in the minds of Whitehall Departments.
	The current system is broadly supported by local people. There is the identity of Cheshire. Although bits have been chopped off over the past 30 years, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) pointed out, the historic heart of the county remains and there is a county council based on that. Then there are local arrangements, which in my case mean that constituents can look to Macclesfield or Vale Royal borough council. We are about to throw away these arrangements in pursuit of a proposal that does not command public support. That is not the way to conduct our business in a democratic system.
	Of course we will try to make the arrangements work if they are voted through tomorrow, and we will do everything we can to ensure that disruption for local people is kept to a minimum, but in the deferred Division that will come later today, we have an opportunity to stop the proposal in its tracks and get on with delivering services such as education, social services and housing, which people want us to be talking about both in Cheshire and in the House of Commons.

Christine Russell: In view of the time, I shall make a few quick points that have not been made by colleagues. I hope I have clarified the position regarding the political stance in Chester. When the bid was put in, all three political parties backed it. The party now in charge of the town hall has not overturned that resolution.
	The City of Chester has a proud history that dates back 2,000 years. Up to 1974, the borough councilthe cityran all its public services. As hon. Members have said, there was huge disappointment in the city in 1995, when the previous Government, after consulting on local government reorganisation, decided to award Warrington and Halton boroughs unitary status, but left the rest of Cheshire as two tier. I have been involved in politics in Chester since 1980 and I can assure the House that the aspiration of the people whom I represent and have always represented is for local government to be local in Chester.
	The proposals in the order before us complement the current delivery pattern for local services. The Western Cheshire primary care trust entirely supports the policies because its boundaries mirror the boundaries of the proposed City of Chester and West Cheshire new unitary authority. Cheshire constabulary has three command units. One covers Halton and Warrington, one covers west Cheshire and one covers east Cheshire. The fire service is organised on similar lines. My constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) share most of the same local health services. We have a joint magistrates bench. So the delivery of all those services replicates the proposal before us.
	I emphasise how confusing the present system is. I say that from the perspective of the Member of Parliament for City of Chester, where there is a visible landmark, the town hall. County hall is only half a mile away, but is invisible to most people. The assumption is that the town hall delivers the services. It is visible and it sends out the council tax bills. But the reality is that 80 per cent. of local service funding comes from the county council.
	The present two-tier system is totally confusing, and I could give many examples of that. People are confused by the fact that the city council collects their rubbish while the county council is responsible for waste disposal, and the city council is responsible for granting planning permissions while the county council is the transport authority. That does not make for good local government. One good example of that is that four years ago, the Government awarded Cheshire county council 4.8 million to provide an extra care facility for elderly frail people but, after four years, those two authorities still have not got their act together. I am led to believe that a site has finally been identified, but the present two-tier system does not work. There is no joined-up working.
	As other hon. Members have said, the joint implementation teams are already working well together. I hope that all hon. Members recognise that this is a time of anxiety for the thousands of employees who work for the seven local authorities across Cheshire. It has been suggested that we should defer the decision because there has been insufficient consultation, but I can assure the House that people in Chester have been talking about local government reorganisation ever since the last round ended in 1995.

Stephen O'Brien: I shall be extremely brief in the hope that my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) will have an opportunity to make a brief contribution.
	It is clear that Cheshire does not want this worst of all options imposed on it, as testified to by five of the eight Members of Parliament from Cheshire who are present today. They are the majority and they are representing their constituents in showing that they do not want this measure to be rammed through. The only way we will defeat the Government is if the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has done a wonderful thing and managed to persuade enough of her colleagues to sign the pink form at the deferred Division later today to reject the order, or if the Lords defeat it.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the measure is subject to a three-line Whip.

Stephen O'Brien: I am downcast and very disappointed.
	It is clear that there was no demand for this measure. There has been no identification of anything that has been so bad that it needs to be changed and fixed. Two-tier working has improved over the years and it could have been improved further. According to objective tests, the delivery of services was excellent all round, and education and social services were excellent. Both of those are now at risk because of the confusion of this rammed-through and imposed solution.

Mike Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen O'Brien: I will not give way, given the length of time for which the hon. Gentleman spoke. However, he put his finger on one problem, which was that once anybody admitted that there had to be a unitary approach, not least when the county council voted, the difficulty of maintaining the consistency of the argument for an improved two-tier system was lost. It was a great shame that many people were tempted to support that and fell for the trap that was laid for them by a Labour party, politically driven agenda, which was to halve the number of Conservative activists through councillors in the county, and to ensure that there was a real problem in identifying where there would any kind of local accountability as part of the great aftermath of having lost any ability to impose a regionally elected solution on Cheshire.
	This is all part of a political agenda where inevitably no one ever votes for lower pay, lower pay-offs and lower pensions. This will all cost a lot more than the Government are pretending that it will. Therefore, when this happens and the council tax is under pressure, it does not matter who is in chargeI would like to predict that it will be the Conservativesit will be the Government's fault, and we will be able to say that with truth, because it is the Government who have engineered this expensive, unnecessary solution. We should reject it and take this last opportunity to stand up for our constituents and not fall for this terrible trap set by the Government, who do not like the idea of good, local democracy operating in Cheshire.

Ann Winterton: Most of the major points have already been made, but I should like to say a few words on behalf of my constituents, who ask me, Why Cheshire? Why can it not be like Derbyshire or Staffordshire and not have to go through this dreadful process in which one part of the county is set against another and one set of councillors is set against another?
	There has been no support for the Government's proposals; most would have preferred the status quo or an improved two-tier system. Frankly, the consultation has been lackingyes, there is a great long list of so-called stakeholders, but I want to know why the ordinary people have not been consulted. They want to know that too.
	A MORI poll revealed that in Congleton constituency, there was 16 per cent. support for a single county unitary authority, only 27 per cent. support for a two-unitary solution, but 55 per cent. support for improved working of the two-tier system. In addition, my council has gone to the High Court about the unlawfulness of the process. It lost its case, but was given permission to appeal. That appeal has been heard and we are awaiting the outcome. We know, of course, that this process will not be stopped.
	The cost will be ginormous. When has anyone ever known a reorganisation to cost less? It never has, and that cost will have to be borne by my constituents among other local town council tax payers of Cheshire.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall call Mr. Andrew Stunell if he respects the fact that I need to call the Minister in one minute's time.

Andrew Stunell: I shall take only that minute, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The financial and community cases do not stand up and the timetable is far too short. My constituents' children go to schools in Cheshire and many of my constituents work there. I lived there for 24 years and was an elected representative there for 12. Having said that, I rest my case.

John Healey: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply. Tonight, we have heard views from all sides, put with passion, reason and concern in varying combinations depending on the contribution. I should like to correct some significant inaccuracies and try to deal with some important concerns that have come up. The invitation to councils across England was made in October 2006. It asked for both unitary proposals and proposals for pathfinders to improve two-tier arrangements. We received five proposals for improving two-tier working, none from Cheshire.
	I should say that we have not disclosed the detail of the independent financial assessment; that was conducted as advice to Ministers and was therefore covered by section 35 as an exemption from freedom of information requirements. However, I have made clear the principal conclusions of the assessment. In the view of the independent experts, the transition costs were certainly greater than those in respect of the proposing authorities, at 25 million. However, the payback comes within just over three and a half years and the annual savings are more than 16 million a year.
	Opinion is divided about support, as we have seen tonight. However, there is a cross-section of support, which gives us confidence that if we go ahead we can make a go of the two unitary authorities. Not only the three district councils back the two-unitary solutionimportant businesses in the region, such as AstraZeneca and the Cheshire building society also do, and six of the 20 parishes that expressed a view do. The chief constable is neutral but marginally in favour of the two-unitary option, essentially because it would be more coterminous with his basic command units. One of the advantages is better strategic leadership; that is why East Cheshire NHS Trust and West Cheshire primary care trust also support the proposal, as does the West Cheshire college, the Highways Agency and Age Concern East Cheshire.
	Concerns have been expressed by the Merits Committee, which were reflected in a couple of contributions, about the time scale and about whether we should be allowing more time to prepare for the change. The implementation teams in east and west Cheshire are up and running, however, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christine Russell) made clear. Officers from all the councils are now working together and have been doing so for some time, with the result that much of the preparatory work is already well advanced. Of particular importance is the increasing involvement evident in Crewe and Nantwich and in Congleton, despite local opposition to the proposal, and the greater involvement of Cheshire county council, especially in terms of some important areas of work led by its senior officers.
	When one adds to that the arrangements for support from the centre, the implementation plans set out in the order, the regular meetings with national Government officials, the detailed involvement from the Government office for the north-west, and the fact that Humberside and Avon represent precedents, from back in 1995, for similar reorganisations on a similar time scale being undertaken effectively, we are given the confidence to believe that this proposed reorganisation can and will be done on a time scale to allow the new authorities to be up and running on 1 April 2009. I recognise that the time scales are tight, but they have been set in response to the local authorities, which have all urged us to make the decision and get on with it. The county council has recognised that, which is why it has decided to withdraw its legal proceedings against the Secretary of State. The county council leader, Paul FindlowI pay tribute to himhas committed to work with district council colleagues, and the leader of the Labour group, Derek Bateman, has also thrown his weight behind the criticism of those who look to try to block the proposal.
	The worst outcome would be if the uncertainty that Cheshire has faced arising from previous reorganisation proposals were to continue because no decision was backed tonight in this place and, later in the week, in the other House. We have created this chance for new flagship local authorities to set a new standard for local governmentwe expect no less.
	 Question put:

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.

Hon. Members: No.
	 Division deferred till Wednesday 27 February, pursuant to Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions).

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 7 and 8 together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Charities

That the draft Charities Act 2006 (Charitable Companies Audit and Group Accounts Provisions) Order 2008, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.

Immigration

That the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2008, which were laid before this House on 30th January, be approved. [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Committees),

CAP Health Check

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 15351/07, Commission Communication, Preparing for the Health Check of the CAP reform; and supports the Government's aim that the health check should cut further the trade-distorting nature of the CAP, reduce regulatory burdens, give farmers greater control over their business decisions and direct more public spending towards the delivery of targeted public benefits. [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put the motions on the Easter and April Adjournments together.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),

Adjournment (Easter)

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 20th March 2008, do adjourn till Tuesday 25th March 2008.

Adjournment (April)

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 3rd April 2008, do adjourn till Monday 21st April 2008. [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY SCHOOLS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Roy.]

Joan Ryan: Despite the lateness of the hour, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the important issue of community supplementary schools. Those schools, with roots in the African-Caribbean community's pioneering work in the 1970s, aim to enhance the educational opportunities of young people through the provision of out-of-school-hours educational initiatives. They supplement mainstream education through a programme that emphasises culture alongside the skills required to achieve academically.
	I know that Lord Adonis, the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, has taken a keen interest in this issue, and I thank him for all the time and attention that he has dedicated so far to addressing and improving the status of supplementary schools. I also thank Paul Morrish from ContinYou, one of UK's leading community learning organisations and host of the National Resource Centre for Supplementary Educationthe NRCand the supplementary school leaders in my constituency, particularly the Turkish supplementary schools consortium, which has worked tirelessly to build, run and grow these facilities for young people in Enfield.
	I am pleased that the issue of supplementary schools is moving further up the political agenda and into the education limelight. Recently, representatives of some of London's 23 Turkish and Kurdish supplementary schools met Lord Adonis to discuss the pressing issues facing this specific sector of the supplementary schools movement. That was a significant step towards embedding support for supplementary schools. I refer to Turkish supplementary schools because they are the predominant form of such school in my constituency, but there are supplementary schools in a range of communities throughout the country, such as Greek Cypriot, Jewish, Bangladeshi, and Muslim schools, and many others, including the Afro-Caribbean schools that I mentioned, which were pioneers in the 1970s.
	One of the ideas that arose from the meeting that the consortium held with the Minister was the suggestion of a senior champion to liaise between the Department for Children, Schools and Families, other Departments and others in the sector, including the national resource centre, to make progress in this area. I strongly welcome such a role and ask the Minister to commit to that extremely helpful idea. I hope that the Government will continue to work closely with and support the National Resource Centre, which does excellent work in this field.
	An estimated 5,000 supplementary schools are operating in England. They demonstrate a significant commitment from ethnic minority communities to improve the academic attainment of minority ethnic pupils through the expression and fostering of cultural qualities. They play a fundamental role in facilitating mainstream education, cultural expression and community cohesion while highlighting the considerable efforts and costs burdening parents, teachers, volunteers and community groups throughout the UK. Despite that, short-term funding has prohibited long-term investment in staffing, resources and the development of partnerships. Some supplementary schools are large and well resourced, but the majority are small, cash-poor projects, reliant on the altruism of local parents, businesses and community groups. The problems and frustrations that they encounter will be familiar to anyone involved in community development and informal education: they lack funding and sometimes teaching resources, their teachers are often untrained, and they can struggle to find premises.
	Funding for supplementary schools is essential if they are to engage as genuine partners, develop the quality of their provision and engage in joint activities with schools. At their best, supplementary schools and mainstream schools link together to contribute to the integration and attainment of children; where that is taking place in a genuine partnership, the impact is demonstrable and impressive.
	The Government are committed to a fair, meritocratic education system that requires every pupil to be valued equally, but that also recognises that not every child should be taught in the same way. Supplementary schools can help to access and unlock the hidden potential of students whose individual intellectual potential has been reduced by a culturally uniform approach to learning. Government-led initiatives such as the ethnic minority achievement grant represent positive action from within the mainstream system to target the underachievement of certain ethnic groups. I feel that it is important to stress that significant progress has already been made.
	However, it is essential that children have an education and a knowledge base that is right for them as individuals. There is evidence to suggest that a one-size-fits-all mode of learning has, in part, marginalised ethnic minority children within the mainstream education system, which has in turn led to significant underachievement. Indeed, one of the key messages of Diversity and Citizenship in the Curriculum, the 2007 curriculum review led by Sir Keith Ajegbo, was the centrality of a more flexible, diverse and tailored approach to teaching.
	In 2006, Ofsted found that
	the diversity of national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in the United Kingdom and the need for mutual respect and understanding
	in key stage 3 and
	their origins and implications
	in key stage 4 were
	only rarely deconstructed to explore in any detail what this implies.
	Such views highlight the difficulties involved in redesigning the curriculum to allow for a greater educational diversity for all children, of all ethnic origins.
	However, Britain's supplementary sector represents an existing educational framework that has the unique capacity to cultivate and encourage individuals' cultural and lingual expression. Supplementary schools can engage young people effectively and help to translate elements of the mainstream curriculum into a culturally embedded context.
	I believe that such projects are vital to the integration of minority ethnic pupils in their respective communities, inside and outside school gates. Following the Government's drive to promote a policy of community cohesion, I am convinced that a great deal can be achieved by celebrating, recognising and encouraging the extraordinary resource that so many of our minority communities offer. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to explore ways in which guidance on community cohesion might best draw attention to the supplementary school sector.
	Of course, supplementary schools offer many other benefits to children and communities. They have traditionally worked closely with parents, local community groups and businesses. The supplementary sector generally boasts far more active parental involvement, which has been recognised as having a profound effect on children's attainment.
	Considerable qualitative and quantitative evidence suggests that students who attend supplementary school have markedly improved examination results across the core mainstream subjects of English, mathematics and science, in addition to their native language.
	A Bristol project that brought supplementary and mainstream schools together as part of a wider project, called the Mainstreaming Supplementary School Support Project, boasted a 13 per cent. increase in those achieving five A* to C grades at GCSE against predicted grades, and a 39 per cent. increase in those achieving any A* to C grades. For some communities, the figures were even higher. Indeed, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority suggests that local authorities and mainstream and supplementary schools should recognise the mutual benefits of collaboration between the sectors and formalise the links between them.
	The Government could do more to encourage mainstream schools to take advantage of those benefits, especially by supporting supplementary education through the successful extended schools programme. Given the amount of investment being made, surely some capacity must exist in local authorities and schools to engage with and support their local supplementary schools.
	The challenges of collaboration are illustrated in my constituency of Enfield, North, where it is clear that those benefits are not being realised as fully as they could be. Enfield Turkish school is an evening and weekend supplementary initiative hosted at Albany school in Enfield. It has proved a huge success in my constituency. Over the past three years, I have engaged with, and worked with, the chairman of the school, Suleyman Soydag, the deputy chair, Alp Ermiya, and teachers in the supplementary school and in the mainstream school that hosts them.
	Four hundred and five pupils attend Enfield Turkish school, of whom 265 attend Turkish language and cultural classes, 60 take GCSE classes and 80 adults attend English language classes. Teachers at Enfield Turkish school are highly qualified and some also teach at Albany school during the conventional school day. The standard of educational provision is outstanding, as is reflected in the GCSE results.
	Turkish school students who sat GCSE examinations in the Turkish language in 2005 achieved an average B grade result, with 95 per cent. achieving grades A* to C and 71.4 per cent. achieving either an A or A* grade. Enfield supplementary school is run over the course of a 38-week year, using two school halls and 14 classrooms every Sunday morning.
	The costs of renting the hall, the classrooms, the use of PCs, printing materials and additional hours for the school caretaker amount to 16,000 per annum. The chairman of the Turkish supplementary school, Suleyman Soydag explains that the money is raised through donations from local businesses, fundraising functions, a small grant from the local authority for accommodation or donations from the parents of attendees through a fees-based system. If the school let the classrooms and hall space at the standard rate, it would make 22,800. However, Albany school has created a special dispensation rate, letting the room and hall space at approximately 40 per cent. of the standard rate. The school also contributes 3,000 to the Turkish school. If we take all the costs into account, we see that Albany secondary school makes an annual loss of 2,899 on letting to the Turkish school.
	The money, effort and enthusiasm invested in Enfield Turkish school and similarly run supplementary projects throughout the country reflect untold academic and social benefits. Without the generous investment from Albany school, Enfield Turkish school could not afford the accommodation for its 405 students. Despite the additional investment that Albany school makes, I have witnessed the reality of the annual ritualistic struggle that Enfield Turkish school faces in maintaining its existing services. It is not that the parents do not want to continue to raise the money; rather, they want to be able to put a substantial amount of that money into the teachers and into the resources in the classroom.
	It is clear that further investment is needed. Supplementary schools have grown in number and in quality, owing to the widespread enthusiasm and confidence that communities have in the supplementary sector. As I have said, there are 5,000 projects nationally. Further investment is needed to secure a set of national standards and a quality framework to optimise the clear benefits of such schools, but that must be done in such a way as not to penalise those cash-poor voluntary run organisations.
	I end by thanking the Minister once again for his work on the issue and by asking him to continue to look into how we can better support the supplementary school sector, particularly in relation to the costs of the premises, support through the extended schools programme and integration into broader strategies such as community cohesion. I hope that a more codified set of guidelines can be developed to ensure that supplementary school projects are, at the very least, organised and run at cost.
	Ultimately, I believe that supplementary schools should have the use of school buildings for free. I know that the matter is devolved to local authorities, which already have the power to remove many charges, but they are unlikely to do so without pressure from the Government. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the contribution of supplementary schools and to think about what I have said about costs. I do not expect him to give me a commitment this evening, but I know that the Department values supplementary schools.

Kevin Brennan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) on securing tonight's debate. She has taken the lead in supporting and promoting supplementary schools and, as she mentioned, has met my ministerial colleague Lord Adonis, who leads for the Department on the subject, a number of times to discuss it.
	Let me say from the outset that I share my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the good work that supplementary schools are doing. We in the Department see their potential to make an even bigger contribution in the future. We know for a fact that supplementary schools can help to boost a young person's academic performance in the way that she mentioned. The National Foundation for Educational Research's pupil research survey in 2001 showed that 84 per cent. of pupils who attended supplementary schools said that they helped them with their wider schoolwork. The research also suggested that supplementary schools helped to improve behaviour by helping to motivate and engage older pupils who might have become disaffected with mainstream school. We are particularly interested in the role that supplementary schools can play in helping us to narrow the attainment gap that exists for certain ethnic groups.
	It is also clear that supplementary schools have a broader social value. They enrich young people's knowledge and experience of their own cultures in a way that goes beyond what the national curriculum covers. Supplementary schools allow pupils to learn their mother tongue, gain a deeper understanding of their cultural heritage and pick up new skills and experiences from older generations that might otherwise have been lost. Supplementary schools therefore help to keep intact the rich cultural diversity of our society, which is something that we all should celebrate and cherish.
	My right hon. Friend mentioned several examples of thriving supplementary schools, particularly one from her constituency, and I know that there are many more throughout the country. For example, my colleague Lord Adonis recently visited the Ebony supplementary school in Greenwich. It has taught more than 4,500 pupils, it boasts its own publishing house and it runs teacher training courses focused particularly on helping African and Afro-Caribbean pupils. Its work is valued by the local community and is equally valued by my Department.
	I would like to say today that the door is very much open for supplementary schools to make these important contributions. We are taking steps to support them in that, as I will show in a moment, but they will have to face up to the challenge that we are setting them, too. That is, they will have to ensure that they work in closer partnership with mainstream education bodies. Supplementary schools work best when they work alongside local schoolswhen they literally supplement what the local school is doing, by sharing information and resources and by exploring how their activities can link back into what the children are doing in the mainstream curriculum.
	When local schools and supplementary schools get their heads together and exploit these synergies to the full, they can make a very big difference. The problem is that, too often, the relationship between supplementary schools and mainstream schools is not good enough. Some good working relationships exist, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. Another example is Heathcote supplementary school in Waltham Forest, which has established a very good relationship with its local mainstream school. However, we need to spread this best practice, and my officials will be exploring what works well in this case and other cases, and how best to forge better connections elsewhere across the country. I know that they will have listened with interest to the examples that my right hon. Friend gave this evening.
	This debate is timely because there are, and will be, significant opportunities for supplementary schools to get involved in the extended schools programme. We are putting 2 billion into ensuring that every school offers after-hours activities and clubs by 2010. One in three schools are already doing that. The vision behind extended schools matches that of supplementary schoolsnamely, to expand children's horizons, to offer them new opportunities, and to give them the chance to experience new things. We see extended schools as part of the hub of local communitiesan access point for a broad range of clubs, activities and other services. We want them to examine local needs, to build links with local community groups and institutions, and to provide children and families with a tailored menu of the options available to them.
	Clearly, supplementary schools can be a valuable part of this offer. We expect local authorities and schools to involve them as an active partner as they plan their extended services options, and we have said as much in our guidance for local authorities. However, for supplementary schools to make the most of these opportunities, they have to be able to show their value to the community and their willingness to work with mainstream education and with local children's services. Hence the need to engage with the national resource centre and to take active steps themselves to build links with local schools.
	My hon. Friend raised the important issue of funding. As she acknowledged, it is the local authorities that decide which supplementary schools to fund and by how much. The Government provide specific support to local authorities through the ethnic minority achievement grant, which is on top of mainstream funding and worked out using a needs-based formula. As I have already said, 2 billion is going into extended schools, some of which could be used to support supplementary schools and to make stronger links with them through the extended offer. All in all, there seems to be a significant level of financial support, which, taken together with what I am going to say in a moment about the national resource centre, shows the level of our commitment to the sector.
	My hon. Friend raised the specific issue of supplementary schools being charged for premises. We have made it clear in guidance issued to local authorities and schools that they should keep the cost of renting facilities to supplementary schools to a minimum. They certainly should not be looking to make a commercial profit out of renting to supplementary schools. We are aware, however, that some supplementary schools are still facing difficulties and we are taking specific steps to help them.
	Lord Adonis met representatives of Turkish and Kurdish supplementary schools in November last year. After that meeting, he made it clear that the Department would work with the sector to establish a level of charging on a case-by-case basis in London schools and local authorities. I am certainly happy to commit to Lord Adonis's work in developing the role of a champion in partnership with supplementary schools. The aim will be to negotiate acceptable terms wherever rates appear unreasonable, and I hope that that process will help some of the schools that my right hon. Friend has mentioned this evening.
	My right hon. Friend may also know that we have set up the independent National Resource Centre for Supplementary Education to facilitate closer working relationships between supplementary and mainstream schools, which I know she has welcomed. It was launched a year ago with funding from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation and my Departmentand it is making excellent progress. The centre is already working closely with 30 partnerships forged between mainstream and supplementary schools in cities across the country. It has established the first national quality framework for supplementary schools, which is now being introduced across the country; it has designed and launched the first nationally accredited programme of training for supplementary schools co-ordinators; and it has developed the first national membership scheme for supplementary schools. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that to achieve all of that in less than a year of operation is an excellent step forward, demonstrating the active, practical support that this centre is able to offer to supplementary schools.
	My Department's grant to the centre was initially planned to end on 31 March this year, but I am pleased to be able to tell my right hon. Friend that I have not come along empty-handed this evening. I am pleased to take the opportunity provided by her debate to announce that we have decided to extend the funding to ensure that the centre's valuable work continues. In 2008-09 the Department will make available a grant of 350,000, and up to a similar amount in 2009-10, with arrangements to give the centre an incentive to become self-sufficient as early as possible. I hope that it was worth my right hon. Friend's staying up this late to hear that announcement this evening. That significant funding commitment runs alongside the commitment from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation to double its grant to the centre over the next three years.

Joan Ryan: That is very welcome news. Although I hope that the Minister will continue to reflect on some of the other issues I have raised tonight, I would not want to be churlish, so I say again that he has announced very welcome news.

Kevin Brennan: I am glad that my right hon. Friend feels able to welcome my announcement.
	A strong, self-sufficient national resource centre will be much better placed to support supplementary schools, enabling them to engage more effectively and more successfully with mainstream schools.
	Let me end, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by reiterating that the door is open for supplementary schools to become part of the fabric of education provision. I promise to take my right hon. Friend's other remarks back to my ministerial colleagues for further consideration. The Department is aware of the benefits and has made it clear to local authorities that they should bear them in mind when shaping extended schools provision. It is not a one-way street; supplementary schools can take active steps to secure their futures, too. We need them to engage with schools more positively and effectively and to demonstrate their quality and the value they can bring through the accreditation schemes being rolled out by the National Resource Centre for Supplementary Education.
	Working in isolation is not an option. We need these schools to become more closely entwined within the fabric of our education system. That is the way by which we will harness their full potential and the way that they will convince institutions that they merit additional funding. Given the increasingly personalised education system that we are striving to create, I believe that supplementary schools have a promising future. Once again, I commend my right hon. Friend for the leadership she has shown on this subject and I am sure that, with her and our support, these schools will continue to go from strength to strength.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Two o'clock.